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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Michael Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-02 10:08:45

On 2/2/11 4:12 AM, in article iib75a$v6a$1_at_[hidden], "Vladimir Prus"
wrote:

>> So the incentives associated with SVN encourage you to keep changes on your
>> local disk, with no logical separation or comment about their meaning until
>> you're ready to show them.  Working on a fix for something and need to handle
>> an
>> emergency somewhere else?  Do you check in what you're working on and go back
>> to
>> a clean state to handle that emergency?  With SVN I almost never did.  With
>> Git
>> it's easy and fast, and doesn't expose incomplete work to the world, so I
>> always
>> do.
> 
> It's also true. It's also true that git has some features that help with that.
> But, it does not mean Boost repository should be git.
> 
> I am primarily using git to keep local patches against various projects,
> which use Subversion and CVS. In some cases, it's a substantial convenience.
> E.g. when
> a patch review turnaround can be a week, it's nice to put a sequence of
> patches
> on a git branch. Note however, that git is not necessary the only, or the best
> answer. Some folks who are way more effective that myself in dealing with
> patch
> series use quilt, and it works just fine desprite not having any hype around.
> And, if you prefer git, you can use git-svn just fine. This will solve all
> your
> issues above.
> 
> It is true that having Boost use git will make it slightly more convenient to
> use git on your computer. However, only slightly more. And the downsides are:
> 
> - Transition costs
> - Ongoing problems for new folks who are not familiar with git
> - Quirky ideas about how you should to version control that git appears
> to enforce on its users
> - That cherry-pick deficiency
> - And, finally, a serious risk that as soon as Boost switches to git,
> everybody
> will get excited, create 100 clones everywhere, and everybody will spends
> days sending and merging pull requests, while there will be no official
> version. This is of course, a process problem, but given our track record
> of ignoring process problems and focusing at not too important discussions,
> I bet we would not be able to fix this.

Been following along silently since the beginning.

Just a couple of comments here:
  There are ongoing problems with new users and SVN. Boost is the ONLY
project that I use that uses SVN. Every time I want to hack on boost I have
dig out my notes and get back up to speed on SVN.
  What is stopping anyone from creating their own SVN server with Boost on
it? A Simple google search will point the way to the "Official" boost SVN
repository.
  
  So neither one of those arguments are really valid in my mind. I dont'
have enough experience to comment on the other issues that you raise.

Mike Jackson