Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-06 11:42:57

Le 06/05/13 07:34, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
> 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?
What is ready for review then, the split on modules?
>
>> 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."
Where this kind of workarounds should go, Boost.Config?
>
> 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.
>
I'm not sure I know how this must be done :(
Anyway, I will try.

Vicente