Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?

Subject: Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-15 12:00:41

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Abrahams
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 4:46 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Status of various Boost initiatives?
> 
> 
> on Wed Jun 26 2013, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 23/06/13 22:59, Robert Ramey wrote:
> >> Robert Ramey wrote:
> >>> I'm trying to get a handle on the current state of the various boost
> >>> migrations which have been underway.
> >>>
> >>> a) migration to GIT
> >
> >>> b) migration to CMake
> >>> c) status of rypll
> >>>
> >>> when I try to track this down I find many dead links, repeated
> >>> information. I also don't find some blogs I used to be able to find
> >>> on these subjects.
> >>> Anyone up to provide an current status snapshot?
> >>>
> >>> Robert Ramey
> >>>
> >>
> >> For example
> >>
> >> a) https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
> >> has a bunch of dead links
> >> b) what used to be www.rypll.org now seems to be
> >> https://github.com/ryppl/ryppl
> >> c) this looks like cmake for boost https://github.com/boost-cmake
> >> c) https://bitbucket.org/boostorg looks to contain the same information or ?
> >>
> >> In general, very, very confusing
> >
> > AFAIK migration to git (with modularized repositories) is ongoing,
> > validation of all contributors has been requested.
> > The other projects are on hold until the migration to git is done.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> * FWIW, http://ryppl.org (only one "l") is still live.
> 
> * http://bitbucket.org/boostorg contains the same information as
>   http://github.com/boostorg, **as we originally announced**, because it
>   has a potentially more-useful history browser that some might prefer
>   using to review the modularization.  Also someone recently checked
>   some enormous files into the SVN sandbox, which prevents us from
>   pushing the sandbox module to github.

This all sounds very promising but can I ask a further question.

Has anyone given any thought to how Boost documentation will work in GIT?

I've recently converted some documentation and though the conversion itself was quite painless, the
links to icons, examples, tests, other Boost library documentation and files caused me some trouble,
and would appear likely to be disrupted by GITerization, potentially causing some serious work,
especially for big libraries  (no prizes for guessing which I particularly have in mind ;).     

However, don't let me distract from the major task of getting the code and history converted.

I'm just raising a flag that this might be a significant issue for the future.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]