Subject: Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-04 03:15:40
On 04/04/2012 12:13 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> As far as I can see, scaling Boost up to a much larger number of
> libraries implies decentralization and decoupling, probably in the
> form of per-library modules or something similar.
> Modularization seems to have been missed in the discussions of
> Subversion, Git, and Mercurial. Do distributed version control systems
> in general and Git in particular have any important
> advantages/disadvantages over svn for highly modularized projects?
As far as I am aware there are two big Opensource Projects which are
highly modularized and use git:
1) Xorg (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/):
They provide one git repository per module, when building any
module from source, one has to track the dependency manually, and point
the build system to the other modules locations.
2) KDE (https://projects.kde.org/ and http://quickgit.kde.org/):
Same setup as above.
I don't know if they were modularized before they switched to git.
IMHO, one of the downsides is the lack of build tool support. Meaning,
that it is a little cumbersome to collect all necessary modules and
setup the build process for the different modules. I don't think the
DCVS approach has any significant advantage over SVN when merely looking
at splitting up one big repository into smaller ones.
However, the advantages discussed in other threads will lead to better
possibilities in integrating externally developed boost modules.
> Please, let's not waste everyone's time with a rehash of general DCVS
> vs CCVS pros and cons. We have beat that to death. Let's focus this
> thread on modularization support, particularly as it applies to Boost.
> Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk