On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM, John Wiegley <johnw@boostpro.com> wrote:
"Belcourt, K. Noel" <kbelco@sandia.gov> writes:
I'd much prefer to leave the repo structure unchanged and migrate directly into git "as is". Restructure the repo into submodules after we've made the transition to git. It will be much easier to restructure the repo with everything already in git. There's two upsides, we lose no commit history and it only perturbs one aspect at a time (first give people chance to use same repo layout using new tool, followed by a restructure of the repo into submodules using the new tool). I worry about perturbing too many variables at once.
A few of us have been discussing this at length off-list. There are arguments on both sides, so I can't say which is truly best except I think we may prefer to get all this disruption over in one big step:
1. Move to Git, preserving monolithic history in a "boost-history" repo. 2. Separate the projects into submodules governed by a "boost" super-project.
I'm with you up to this point.
3. Switch to CMake as the build process for these submodules.
That's a whole different topic. There is something deeply flawed about the modularization design if it requires a switch to CMake. Indeed, one of the reasons I want to try the modularization design on one of my libraries is to verify it is compatible with both our current build system and build systems that have nothing to do with either Boost.Build/bjam or CMake. --Beman