Subject: Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-04 03:34:45
On 04/04/2012 09:15 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> 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.
I forgot one thing ... this whole build-tool support might not be a big
problem for linux users, as they can easily get the boost modules with
dependency tracking and such from their distribution. How will this look
in windows? For boost contributors this might not be a big issue, cause
it is a one-time setup. What about users who need the latest greatest
version from version control?
Please say that I rate this problem too high and that there is an easy
FWIW, I am all for a modularized boost!
>> 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:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk