Subject: Re: [boost] [boost-steering] Re: [Git] Documentation for Git and Modular Boost conversion
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-15 21:59:38
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Fri Dec 07 2012, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/7/2012 3:48 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >> 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
> > support
> > <https://github.com/blog/1178-collaborating-on-github-with-subversion>.
> > 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.
> If it really works, I'm all for documenting it. However, I'd be shocked
> if your existing externals will continue to work because a) we're not
> going to have a monolithic git repo and b) even in the repo with
> submodules (which will only track releases) it's going to have a
> different directory structure.
I'm not expecting it to work with my existing externals at all. All I want
is a path for the developers that want to use and track in-development
versions of libraries and tools and are using subversion (and can't change
that use). The bridge does seem to work very well for read access. Within
the limits of what such a bridge can offer that is. And at least for my use
case, that is tracking and testing bbv2, it would work.
Note, the only problem so far I've run into with the svn<=>github bridge is
in using the advanced svn 1.7 commit model. But since it's read only that
I'm really interested in. Although it might be that bbv2 development stays
in subversion anyway, with occasional pushes to git. And for any libraries
I deal with I'll likely use mercurial instead anyway. But I guess this is
the price of switching to git.. More fragmentation and inconsistency in
revision tools used in the Boost community.
-- -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk