Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
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.
And the process of making that possible is already underway: https://github.com/ryppl/boost-svn
Thanks for pointing to the ryppl account on github. It raised some questions for me: 1. There are two git versions of the Boost tree in there, boost-svn and boost-history, which to my uninformed eye seem to be doing the same thing. boost-svn is a "live mirror" of the Boost svn repository while boost-history is a "faithful conversion" of the Boost svn repository. Apart from the fact that boost-svn has more branches than boost-history and that boost-history seems to be updated less often, I see no difference. Why do these two git repositories exist in parallel? 2. Again to my uninformed eye, all those branches of boost-svn look a bit disorganised. Wouldn't it need some cleaning and reorganising either shortly before or shortly after the switch? Or is that perhaps exactly the purpose of boost-history?
Actually, I think the switch is mostly just awaiting a decision from Beman and any necessary associated discussion here on this list.