Subject: Re: [boost] [git help] Documenting common modular boost workflows
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 07:07:57
On 24 October 2013 10:28, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> On 24 October 2013 08:50, Julian Gonggrijp 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.
> I didn't think of that. Thanks for clearing up!
Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't be
concerned, just that we shouldn't expect too much from our tools. This
is as much of a social problem as a technical one. We can't remove the
need for coordination and communication, but we can use (or make)
tools which make it easier to manage. And I hope this should be easier
to manage with git modules than subversion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk