Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-02 06:49:15

Dave Abrahams wrote:

> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> OK then, a modularised boost is an expensive precondition for moving
>>>> to git.
>>> 
>>> It isn't a precondition for moving to Git.  We can move to Git and then
>>> do the modularization step; it's not a problem.  However, it does mean
>>> two transitions.
>> 
>> Which can be a good thing. Breaking a process down into smaller stages
>> can make it easier. It seems to me that we've discussed git several
>> times, and it's always part of a grand scheme. If git is considered
>> desirable enough, then it might be best to just switch to it, keeping
>> everything else the same.
> 
> And the process of making that possible is already underway:
> https://github.com/ryppl/boost-svn

Thanks for pointing to the ryppl account on github. It raised some 
questions for me:

1. There are two git versions of the Boost tree in there, boost-svn 
and boost-history, which to my uninformed eye seem to be doing the 
same thing. boost-svn is a "live mirror" of the Boost svn repository 
while boost-history is a "faithful conversion" of the Boost svn 
repository. Apart from the fact that boost-svn has more branches than 
boost-history and that boost-history seems to be updated less often, 
I see no difference. Why do these two git repositories exist in 
parallel?

2. Again to my uninformed eye, all those branches of boost-svn look a 
bit disorganised. Wouldn't it need some cleaning and reorganising 
either shortly before or shortly after the switch? Or is that perhaps 
exactly the purpose of boost-history?

> Actually, I think the switch is mostly just awaiting a decision from
> Beman and any necessary associated discussion here on this list.