Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-01 06:17:41

>
> > but maybe those problems are now completely resolved and I just have not
> > kept up with the discussion. Also Steven Ross will want to integrate
> > 'spreadsort' into the modular boost directory structure and since this is
> > his first contribution to Boost we need to make it understandable to him
> > how to do this.
> >
>
> Yes. One question is "who is the maintainer for the overall sort library?"
> It would be nice if someone was looking at the big picture, so that there
> was some consistency between individual sorts for docs, testing, etc. There
> might be some overall docs, too, to help users choose between algorithms
> without having to read about each sort algorithm separately.
>
> Steven, are you interested in that role?
>

Yes, I'm willing to perform that role.

The question seems to boil down to: do we have algorithm/sort/spreadsort,
or just sort/spreadsort?  Either way, sort should probably be its own
submodule.  There was still the concern from Rene that sub-sub-modules can
be difficult for others to put together properly (for the purpose of
building a minimal necessary subset).  Has that been resolved?

My inclination is that unless the maintainer of the algorithm library would
welcome a new sub-submodule, and the concerns about the difficulty of
building a minimal subset aren't resolved, I'd rather have this as it's own
module: sort.