Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-29 01:22:19

on Tue Feb 28 2012, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
>> on Thu Feb 09 2012, greened-AT-obbligato.org wrote:
>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apenwarr/git-subtree
>> 
>> I don't think git-subtree is the right tool for us.  Suppose libraries A
>> and B both depend on libraries C and D.  It would IMO be a disaster if
>> the repositories for A and B each included the source to C and D.
>
> I might have misunderstood, but my impression was that git-subtree was 
> not intended to be used like that in the first place. If I understood 
> correctly, A, B, C and D would all be subtrees of the Boost supertree, 
> and developers would be able to tranparently treat any subtree either 
> as a separate git repository or as an ordinary directory within the 
> Boost repository at any given time. So both A and B would only include 
> itself, and C and D wouldn't be included by anything other than the 
> Boost supertree.

I don't see any advantage at all in having a "Boost supertree."  If I
need a cluster of five libraries to get a job done, I don't see a reason
to mess around with anything more than those five.  And with the
dependencies properly encoded, I won't even have to ask for all of those
explicitly.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com