On 28.12.2012 18:32, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Fri Dec 28 2012, Larry Evans <cppljevans-AT-suddenlink.net> wrote:
On 12/28/12 07:21, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Olaf van der Spek <ml <at> vdspek.org> writes:
Can't we first move to Git and only afterwards modularize things?
We could have decided to do that, but we didn't, and I think we made the right decision
Could you please explain a bit more why it was the right decision?
1. I believe that in this case, two disruptions are more disruptive than one.
2. I believe that without modularization, the move to Git does not sufficiently decouple development of individual libraries to be a win for Boost.
3. We're ready now; we have considered all the decisions for years and we believe the plan is solid.
4. Personally, my availability to work on this is likely to get much smaller soon. If we don't get this done now, the modularization parts (which I consider paramount) might never get done.
Dave, Those last two points seem weak to me. - It really does not matter how much calendar time you've spent on this, if the proposed plan raises concerns - Rushing a solution that has concerns just because you'll be out of time tomorrow, or because there's some other deadline, simply creates technical debt, which presumably you expect to be paid by others - if only in terms of extra dancing around necessary when "git blame" fails to report anything meaningful. From a user point of view, I don't see what's wrong with having each module contain changes to its original content adjust for directory layout change. Thanks, Volodya