Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-06 01:34:37

on Sun May 05 2013, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le 04/05/13 21:08, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> After substantial work, including massive changes by me and Daniel
>> Pfeifer to KDE's svn->Git conversion tool, we have captured every Boost
>> SVN commit in a Git repository.  You can view the results at
>
>>
>>      http://github.com/boostorg
>>      http://bitbucket.org/boostorg
>>
>> or you can pull from these repositories and view them in your local
>> browser.
>>
>> The conversion process is automated by
>> http://jenkins.boost.org/job/Boost2Git/ using the tool at
>> http://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git
>>
>> The rules that describe how commits are distributed are
>> in https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/blob/master/repositories.txt
>>
>> To understand how to edit that file, please read
>> https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/wiki/Editing-repositories.txt
>>
>> Daniel and I are ready to accept your feedback on the results of
>> modularization, and especially your pull requests containing edits to
>> the ruleset.  I will the steering committee to establish a formal review
>> period, though.
>>
>
> Now that the it is ready for review, could you point where is the
> documentation to review?

Sorry, what documentation?

> Could I move the following from repository thread to core?
>
>     "boost/detail/atomic_redef_macros.hpp" :
> "include/boost/detail/atomic_redef_macros.hpp";
>     "boost/detail/atomic_undef_macros.hpp" :
> "include/boost/detail/atomic_undef_macros.hpp"; I added these
> files. They are used now by Boost.Thread, but it should be used by
> SmartPtr (See https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6842 and
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6843). Best, Vicente

First, are you sure they don't belong in their own module?
It might be a good idea to minimize the size of the core "blob."

Second, sure, we can do that.  Please try editing the ruleset yourself
and submitting a pull request as described above.  We need to find out
if our instructions are adequate.

Thanks,

-- 
Dave Abrahams