Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?

Subject: Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-11 19:35:25

on Wed Apr 11 2012, Bjørn Roald <bjorn-AT-4roald.org> wrote:

> On 04/11/2012 04:15 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> The use of 0install makes modularization a non-issue where the DVCS is
>> concerned, so I truly don't think it's worth hashing over the different
>> ways you can handle this with Hg or Git or SVN.
>
> Oinstall based solution sounds like it is worth investigating, but I
> am a bit concerned you are concluding too fast here that DVCS
> alternatives for inter module dependency management is not needed.  As
> you have stated in an earlier post, most boost developers are only
> working on one boost library, hence a 0install solution for pulling
> inn all dependencies sounds like it will meet the requirements - I
> agree on that.  However, what about when there is a need to work on
> more than one library? Or for that sake a boost wide fix due to
> changes in config, boostbook, quickbook, build, etc.  What then?

Daniel Pfeifer had a wonderful idea, that we provide a simple way to
assemble a CMake project that includes all the parts you want to work
on.  Of course, you're welcome to set up whatever repositories you like,
with whatever submodules you like, for your own purposes.

> I guess more add-hoc use of submodule, subtree, subrepo, externals, or
> whatever may be set up by a script, or in worst case even manually.
> For that to be reasonably simple, it may  however require some
> preference alignment within boost for what (D)VCS to use and how to
> set it up.

I'm strongly of the opinion that it will be better for users and
developers if everything in Boost uses the same infrastructure
technology.

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