Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 10:22:53
On 1 March 2012 13:06, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 March 2012 00:44, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> 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.