On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 March 2012 00:44, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Wed Feb 29 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Ryppl comes with a few problems.
Specifically?
You should be telling us that. It's vapourware, it's conceptually unproven, it's coupled to a controversial build system, it's a large disruptive change.
Yes, all of these things are true. I'm not sure why I should be telling you that, though. I only asked because I wanted to know to what you were referring.
Sorry, having re-read that, it was too aggressive, I take it back. I thought these things were well established, which is why I didn't mention them in the first place.
OK then, a modularised boost is an expensive precondition for moving to git.
It isn't a precondition for moving to Git. We can move to Git and then do the modularization step; it's not a problem. However, it does mean two transitions.
Which can be a good thing. Breaking a process down into smaller stages can make it easier. It seems to me that we've discussed git several times, and it's always part of a grand scheme. If git is considered desirable enough, then it might be best to just switch to it, keeping everything else the same.