Subject: Re: [boost] [git help] Documenting common modular boost workflows
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 04:17:42
On 24 October 2013 08:50, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> Exactly. One of the main points of modularizing is to minimize the
>> coordination burdens associated with our processes. Especially when you
>> have an organization of volunteers, creating a situation where one
>> person's non-responsiveness can stymie overall progress is a bad idea.
> Point taken. Still, you haven't taken away my worry about "conflict
> propagation": what if a couple of conflicting modules block the newest
> versions of 20 (or more!) other modules?
> Is that somehow not possible? Am I missing something?
If that happens in subversion, we have the same problem. Perhaps a
larger one since merging to release is such a mess.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk