Re: [boost] Process discussions

Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 13:34:50

On 1/31/2011 9:38 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
>> On Behalf Of Daniel James
>> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:18 PM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
>>
>> On 31 January 2011 13:05, Paul A. Bristow<pbristow_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Should we not be saying "If you are more than n (=2?) releases behind
>>> - Tough! Upgrade before you as again!")
>>
>> It's quite difficult for some people to update. Certainly not something
> they can
>> do several times a year.
>>
>>> (And - aside - why it is not
>>>
>>> Trunk/
>>>   Jamfile
>>>   mylib/
>>>     boost/
>>>     libs/
>>>
>>> Why are there two 'extra' /mylib folders?  Is this historical or
>>> is/was there some logic to it?)
>>
>> It's need in the header directory so that the include paths for different
> libraries
>> don't clash.
>
> That seems lot of extra sub folders for something that a modest about of
> name control could avoid?

My understanding is that it replicates the Boost structure. So one can 
refer to one's header file paths as if one's top level directory is the 
main directory of a Boost distribution. Then there is no need to change 
header file includes when one's library is put inside a Boost 
distribution tree ( or some SVN branch like 'trunk' which duplicates a 
Boost tree ).

I think if you will look at the structure you will see this pretty easily.

>
> But I would not even think changing it now.
>
> I haven't found that explanation of why anywhere - but of course there isn't
> an effective index to much of Boost ;-)
>
> (I note that there are some projects in sandbox that fail to follow this
> layout, so they are going to get into trouble :-(  A template might help?)

I agree with you. I honestly don't see why all possible libraries for 
Boost to be reviewed are not in the sandbox using the recommended 
layout. It would certainly make it much easier for others to use, test, 
review, and get updates to such libraries when they occur. I think that 
this should be a Boost mandate: "if you want to submit your library for 
a Boost review you need to get sandbox access and put your library into 
it using the recommended directory structure." I find that much easier 
than getting some library from some URL address on the Internet or from 
the Boost vault, as a monolithic zip file, and unzipping and hoping that 
the directory structure corresponds to something I can try without 
wasting a great deal of time figuring out how to use said library.