Subject: Re: [boost] Sandbox structure in subversion (was Re: [move] Library uploaded to sandbox)
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-27 08:19:32
Daniel James wrote:
> 2009/2/24 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>:
>> Why do you want the change?
> The main reason reason is that we're currently using the sandbox
> directory in two different ways and it's a mess. If you want to check
> out the boost, libs, etc. stuff then it gets mixed up with the
> individual library directories, the history gets is totally confused.
> Sometime the libraries in their own directory end up using the shared
> boost build files and sometimes they don't. It's hard to get an idea
> of what's available when looking in the repository.
True, and it's why we came up with the structure and told people to use
the new sandbox/somelib structure. But alas, people don't always listen,
and/or are lazy about this.
> But having said all of that, the downside to change is the disruption
> it would cause - and that could easily outweigh the advantages.
> Especially if there's little support for the change.
The other downside, is that the "standard" layout makes it horribly
inconvenient to keep track of all the sandbox projects. I.e. I can't do
a single check out to get all of them without waisting gobs of disk
space and network time... Yes there are some number of us that have the
whole sandbox around.
But I'll stop repeating myself... There's various long discussions long
ago regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each layout. Along
with justifications as to why they are equivalent.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk