Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for comments on super-project workflow doc
From: Peter A. Bigot (pab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-04 15:14:59

On 01/02/2014 04:19 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Peter A. Bigot wrote:
>> Ack.  FWIW, that's not how I see submodule-based git projects in the 
>> general case.  If most Boost modules are independent (are they?),
>
> No. I'd say that the probability for two randomly selected submodules 
> to be independent is not above 50% (although I haven't actually done 
> the math). Boost libraries tend to depend heavily on other Boost 
> libraries.

After some analysis I agree: Boost libraries are much more highly 
coupled than I had guessed.

The stats for the number of modules a given module depends on are:

   114 samples from 0 to 46 ; sdev 9.18514
   amean 13.7105 ; gmean 11.6043 ; hmean 8.13638
   median 13 ; mode 6 occurs 7 times

and the stats for the number of modules a given module supports are:

   114 samples from 0 to 102 ; sdev 20.5803
   amean 13.1579 ; gmean 6.82233 ; hmean 3.13355
   median 5.5 ; mode 0 occurs 20 times

For example, lib/graph uses 46 other modules, lib/config is used by 102 
other modules, and there are 20 modules that are unused by any Boost 
library (including all seven tools/* modules).

I don't want to waste anybody's time (including my own) pro-actively 
documenting the exact details of what I did, though I may clean up the 
tool and submit it for incorporation into some existing module if 
there's strong interest.  (It uses Boost.Filesystem and Boost.Regex, and 
would use Boost.Graph if completed.  It may be that the information 
could be extracted using Boost.Build, too; I didn't try to figure that out.)

Peter