Subject: Re: [boost] [boost-steering] Re: [Git] Documentation for Git and Modular Boost conversion
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-07 23:49:33
On 12/7/2012 3:48 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Dec 07 2012, Eric Niebler <eric-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
>> (cc'ing boost-steering ...)
>> On 12/7/2012 12:09 PM, Michael Fawcett wrote:
>>> I've since moved on to another company, but at my last job at least
>>> three projects I worked on had a similar setup. They wouldn't be
>>> affected though since the externals were set up to the /releases/
>>> directory and grabbed a certain tag (e.g. boost 1.41.0). I think this
>>> is probably the most common externals scenario.
>>> It seems the only people immediately affected would be those with
>>> svn:externals to boost/trunk, which seems like an unlikely scenario.
>> That seems unlikely to me also. Rene?
> Me too, and I don't think we shoudl try to provide a seamless transition
> for every possible use case.
>>> Those with existing externals wishing to upgrade to the latest boost
>>> release would need that migration path, however.
> Those people would either stop using SVN externals for Boost, and simply
> check a copy of Boost into their source tree, or maintain their own SVN
> mirror of the boost releases (at least the ones they're interested in)
> and then point their externals to that mirror.
>> This could be accommodated easily, I think, but it's something we'd have
>> to add. There will be a script used by the release managers to
>> reassemble a monolithic boost from the modules for a release. All that
>> would be needed would be to run that script nightly and push the results
>> into a separate git repo for people to track.
> I think that's a bad idea, because it would leave us responsible for
> maintaining a correspondence between said git repo and our other reality
> that meets peoples' expectations. Furthermore, I don't see how
> providing a Git repo is going to be much help to people that are using
> SVN externals.
> Boost is making this transition. It *will* cause some disruption. It
> will also make things easier for some people. IMO we should not burden
> this move, which is supposed to make it easier and more efficient
> overall for Boost to operate, with any unnecessary obligations.
Well.. I found the more reasonable (in the sense that it doesn't leave
people hanging that do what I do).. In the form of GitHub's subversion
I tried this with the current BBv2 git project and it works nicely. So I
would suggest that this is something we should add to the documentation.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk