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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Russell L. Carter (rcarter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-30 23:54:18

On 01/30/2011 08:13 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 7:16 PM, Scott McMurray wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 15:38, Steven Watanabe<watanabesj_at_[hidden]> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, so this is just an instance of using
>>> local commits--which as far as I can tell
>>> is the only actual advantage of a DVCS.
>>>
>>
>> I agree -- everything different about a DVCS is a consequence of
>> allowing local commits.  The best way I've seen of phrasing that
>> fundamental difference:
>>
>>      "[A DVCS] separates the act of committing new code from the act of
>> inflicting it on everybody else." ~<http://hginit.com/00.html>
> 

Hi!

Idle comment from the peanut gallery here.

If git is so good, and it is so easy to maintain and merge between
branches, why not fork boost into a pure git canonical repo, (not the
ridiculously complicated setup(s) done previously) and then maintain
patches in a single dedicated svn branch for the svn dead enders, to
be applied whenever that makes sense?  DVCS merging competence is
supposed to be bidirectional.

(In the biz 32 years now, cvs user for 20+, svn since the beginning,
git for 3+)

Russell

(submerging again, but not subversioning anymore... thank you git-svn)