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:
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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk