Subject: Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
From: Marco Cecchetti (mrcekets_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-04 04:39:30
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:13:49 +0200, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> 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?
> 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.
Modularization has its advantage for sure anyway it has to be evaluated
carefully because managing a multi-repository project can require a lot
of discipline. For instance lately LibreOffice has switched from a
multi git repository layout to a monolithic one , because handling
them separately was become a mess.
I want to be clear I am not against modularization but I think also
that we should be aware of any drawback of this solution.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk