I personally find the subject line of this posting needlessly alarming.
on Thu May 09 2013, Beman Dawes
If the steering committee's Git Modularization Review vote
What vote? We asked for a review period; maybe I shouldn't have used that word. The intention was to give people a chance to make corrections to the way things were being modularized so we could move on to the next step. https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/wiki#vetting-period
were held today, I've vote no since I think that we aren't yet ready. Since my concerns are apparently easy to fix technically, I'm mentioning them here to give Dave and Daniel a chance to address them before the actual Git Modularization Review starts.
Concerns:
1) The mapping of svn branch names to modular git branch names needs to be revised: Svn "trunk" needs to become modular git "develop", not "master". Modular git needs to have a branch "master" that represents the latest stable release. Whether the content is identical to the last boost release or to branches/release at point of conversion needs to be decided, as does what the history, if any, of this branch looks like.
Decided by whom? If it's up to us, we'll do whatever is expedient to avoid the threat of a "no vote"
2) The procedures described in https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/TryModBoost need to be updated, the dependency on CMake needs to be removed, and the procedures need to work.
Where did these prerequisites come from? You wrote the web page; are you going to update it? https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/TryModBoost?action=history
These are blocking issues because they prevent development and testing of modular boost testing procedures, developers procedures, release procedures, installation procedures, and documentation. Until they are resolved, the entire modular boost conversion rests on the shoulders of Dave and Daniel. Once they are resolved, others can pitch in and help since from that point forward we will be in a pure git environment and detailed knowledge of the conversion process from svn is not required.
I understand that these are blocking issues for the switchover. We're not asking people to approve an immediate switchover; we're just asking for people to make fixes and requests regarding how things are sorted into modules. -- Dave Abrahams