On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
(cc'ing boost-steering ...)
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
Once the switch is made, subversion will be made read-only. It won't go away, but development will take place in the modularized git repos. Changes from git won't be pushed back into svn; that would become increasingly difficult as the structure of the repos diverge. Anybody who makes use of svn externals to track boost development will need to update to git.
Is this scenario common enough that we should have a documented migration path for such people?
Since I'm one of the persons under that scenario my biased opinion is
On 12/7/2012 12:09 PM, Michael Fawcett wrote: that
yes it's common enough. But obviously I don't know how widespread the scenario is.
I've since moved on to another company, but at my last job at least three projects I worked on had a similar setup. They wouldn't be affected though since the externals were set up to the /releases/ directory and grabbed a certain tag (e.g. boost 1.41.0). I think this is probably the most common externals scenario.
It seems the only people immediately affected would be those with svn:externals to boost/trunk, which seems like an unlikely scenario.
That seems unlikely to me also. Rene?
I'm in that scenario for a bunch of my projects.. More specifically.. I track BBv2 from trunk as I use it as my build system. There might be others who track trunk versions of other individual libraries and tools. Don't really know though.
Those with existing externals wishing to upgrade to the latest boost release would need that migration path, however.
This could be accommodated easily, I think, but it's something we'd have to add. There will be a script used by the release managers to reassemble a monolithic boost from the modules for a release. All that would be needed would be to run that script nightly and push the results into a separate git repo for people to track. Naturally, that repo should be read-only for everybody except the bot executing the script.
Since, IMO, one is more likely to track trunk or release versions of individual parts of Boost.. Would it be helpful to have that same support be optionally provided? -- -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo