Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism

Subject: Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-23 08:39:45

Philippe Vaucher wrote:

>> What you are suggesting seems to be what the Ryppl folks been working
>> on for several years now.
>> 
> 
> You're right that the migration probably overlaps a lot with what Ryppl
> tries to achieve. I hope for everyone's best that both will move forward as
> a result.

If I understood correctly the ryppl project has several aims:

- migration to git
- migration to cmake
- modularization, together with some form of package management

(the latter is perhaps the real aim, while the former two are just 
means to an end)

So my impression is that Philippe was trying to cover only about a 
third of what the ryppl folks have been working on. Which of course 
may still mean that some form of redundancy is going on.

Either way, I think it has been argued elsewhere that isolating the 
migration to git from the other steps would be a good idea.

-Julian