[boost] Re: Was [RE: Moving from CVS to Subversion?] Now is "Subversion experiences from the field"

From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 04:52:29

troy d. straszheim wrote:
> SVN accomodates this structure quite nicely.  In the spirit of 
> considering the project structure carefully, here's a few thoughts. 
> Assume that you have your libraries broken up as in the jakarta example 
> above.  boost would look something like this:
> 
> /boost
>   /boost
>     /shared_ptr
>       /trunk
>       /branches/v1.0
>       /branches/v1.1
>     /type_traits
>       /trunk
>       /branches/v1.0
>       /branches/some_other_branch
>   /libs
>     /shared_ptr
>       /trunk
>       /branches/v1.0
>     /type_traits
>       /trunk
>       /branches/v1.0
>       /branches/some_other_branch
>   /tools
>     /trunk
>     /branches/v1.0
> 
> Now that kind of looks like a nightmare, but svn makes it pretty easy to 
> handle.  A checkout of the trunk should assemble the trunks of each 
> sublibrary locally in such a way that immediately after the checkout, 
> you're ready to bjam without additional work.  Named releases should do 
> something similar, but with various releases of various sublibraries.

I think this is a good idea, but the problem is that a lot of libraries 
have code in the boost directory (such as boost/shared_ptr.hpp). They 
could possibly be changed to just include the implementation from a 
subdirectory. Would this be worth it? I actually think that might be a 
good idea anyway.

This would be very nice for Spirit, which has two active versions.

Daniel