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. 5. Maintaining the unofficial modularized mirrors without having them be official for an indefinite period going forward is a resource drain I don't think we can afford.
Olaf's suggestion sounded reasonable to me. OTOH, I'm certainly not' familiar with git; hence, I'm probably missing something obvious to you and the others who are pioneering this effort( thanks for that).
You're welcome. Thank you for your trust in our several years of research and work on this. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost