Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-03 08:01:33
On 2 March 2012 11:18, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>
>>> on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 by "part of a grand scheme" you mean CMake, modularization or the
> Ryppl model in its entirety, I agree; but if you mean gitflow
> branching or the crude test image model that emerged from our
> discussion with Thomas Heller, I don't. I think both of the latter
> two ideas would involve only small, gradual changes which are best
> implemented (shortly) after the conversion to git is made. These are
> just a matter of "adapting to new opportunities".
I was referring more to previous discussions (including things that
I've said). I have no idea how difficult it would be to switch to
something like gitflow. I think I understand how gitflow is supposed
to work in theory, but have no experience of how it works in practise.