Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 13:26:21

Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> At Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:05:46 +0700,
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>
>>> <idle speculation>
>>> Is it feasible to have both git and svn development going on
>>> simultaneously? Two-way synchronization from non-modularized svn
>>> boost to modularized git boost? Is that pure insanity?
>>> </idle speculation>
>>
>> Probably not *pure* insanity, but also perhaps not worth the
>> trouble, IMO.
>
> Still, doing a "big bang" conversion to Git all at one time is more
> than a notion.
>
> Independent of modularization, ryppl, or anything else, is it time to
> start a discussion on the main list about moving to Git?

To me, this illustrates a fundamental problem.  If the issue of
modularization were addressed, there would be no requirement
that all libraries use the same version control system.  That is,
change to a different version control system would occur
one library at time.

Same can be said for the build system.

The only coupling really required between libraries is

a) namespace coordination
b) directory structure - to some extent at least at the top levels
c) quality standards
    i) testing
    ii) platform coverage
    iii) documentation requirements

If coupling is required somewhere else, it's an error that
is holding us back.

Robert Ramey

>
> --Beman