Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-03 08:01:33
On 2 March 2012 11:18, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>>> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 by "part of a grand scheme" you mean CMake, modularization or the
> Ryppl model in its entirety, I agree; but if you mean gitflow
> branching or the crude test image model that emerged from our
> discussion with Thomas Heller, I don't. I think both of the latter
> two ideas would involve only small, gradual changes which are best
> implemented (shortly) after the conversion to git is made. These are
> just a matter of "adapting to new opportunities".
I was referring more to previous discussions (including things that
I've said). I have no idea how difficult it would be to switch to
something like gitflow. I think I understand how gitflow is supposed
to work in theory, but have no experience of how it works in practise.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk