Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-10 09:52:55

I personally find the subject line of this posting needlessly alarming.

on Thu May 09 2013, Beman Dawes <> wrote:

> If the steering committee's Git Modularization Review vote

What vote? We asked for a review period; maybe I shouldn't have used
that word. The intention was to give people a chance to make
corrections to the way things were being modularized so we could move on
to the next step.

> were held today, I've vote no since I think that we aren't yet
> ready. Since my concerns are apparently easy to fix technically, I'm
> mentioning them here to give Dave and Daniel a chance to address them
> before the actual Git Modularization Review starts.
> Concerns:
> 1) The mapping of svn branch names to modular git branch names needs
> to be revised: Svn "trunk" needs to become modular git "develop", not
> "master". Modular git needs to have a branch "master" that represents
> the latest stable release. Whether the content is identical to the
> last boost release or to branches/release at point of conversion needs
> to be decided, as does what the history, if any, of this branch looks
> like.

Decided by whom? If it's up to us, we'll do whatever is expedient to
avoid the threat of a "no vote"

> 2) The procedures described in
> need to be updated,
> the dependency on CMake needs to be removed, and the procedures need
> to work.

Where did these prerequisites come from?

You wrote the web page; are you going to update it?

> These are blocking issues because they prevent development and testing
> of modular boost testing procedures, developers procedures, release
> procedures, installation procedures, and documentation. Until they are
> resolved, the entire modular boost conversion rests on the shoulders
> of Dave and Daniel. Once they are resolved, others can pitch in and
> help since from that point forward we will be in a pure git
> environment and detailed knowledge of the conversion process from svn
> is not required.

I understand that these are blocking issues for the switchover. We're
not asking people to approve an immediate switchover; we're just asking
for people to make fixes and requests regarding how things are sorted
into modules.

Dave Abrahams

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at