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

Beman Dawes wrote:

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Dave Abrahams 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?

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