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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-28 15:10:56

On 1/28/2011 1:46 PM, John Maddock wrote:
>>> The current approach implements the view of Boost as a
>>> particular set of libraries ONLY built/tested/distributed as an
>>> whole.
>>>
>>> My view is that is not scaling well and can never do so.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Still, that doesn't mean we're going to be more nimble and scalable if
>> there's no standardization of tools across Boost. Quite the contrary,
>> IMO. I can imagine all kinds of problems coming up that are simply
>> ruled out by using the same tools.
>
> +1 from me, we must IMO have standardized tools - whatever we decide
> those are - otherwise what you're proposing is the complete
> fragmentation of Boost into something even more unmanageable than now.
>
> I still haven't heard from the git proponents, what's wrong with using
> git-svn to manage a local - i.e. distributed - git repository, and then
> periodically pushing changes to SVN. In other words working with git
> just as you normally would, except for having to type "git svn" from
> time to time? This isn't a rhetorical question BTW, I've never used
> either git or git-svn, so I clearly don't know what I'm missing ;-)

The arguments of Git's superiority as a distributed VCS over SVN's 
centralized VCS do not convince me either. I understand them but I 
wonder if the switch from SVN to Git is worth it just so end-users can 
make their own changes to a local Git repository and then push their 
entire repository to a centralized location some time later. This is as 
opposed to SVN users making periodic changes by committing to a 
centralized SVN repository periodically. I just do not see the big deal 
in the difference.

I do not see Boost's possible need to become less centralized and go 
from a monolithic distribution to possible individual distributions as 
dependent on using a distributed repository model versus a centralized 
repository model. I believe many other issues are much more important, 
as brought up by Robert Ramey and others.

I would much rather Boost have a discussion of those other issues than 
focus on Git versus SVN, which I think of as just another red herring.

>
> John.
>
> PS, just looked at the git website, and it appears that us Windows users
> are restricted to either Cygwin or MSys builds? If so that appears to be
> a major drawback IMO.... OK I see there's a TortoiseGit, but it looks
> distinctly immature at first glance, and still depends on MSys (i.e. no
> easy integrated install)?

I have not looked at what it takes to build it from source, but 
installing Tortoise Git on Windows is pretty easy from a binary 
download. The  documentation is not as good as Tortoise SVN amd leaves 
much to be desired. There is a mailing list/Gmane NG for questions etc.