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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-28 07:24:04

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:

>> 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.

In principle, true.  In practice, we need some consistency across
boost or it will become hard for the community to contribute, and
especially hard for people (including release managers) to step in and
fix things, or even assemble a distribution.  This is to say nothing
of automated testing.

> 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

introduces a build system dependency.

>    ii) platform coverage
>    iii) documentation requirements
>
> If coupling is required somewhere else, it's an error that
> is holding us back.

I don't believe such an error exists here.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com