Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Jürgen Hunold (jhunold_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-20 14:41:45

HI Daniel.

On Monday, 20. May 2013 10:48:20 Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> 2013/5/20 Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> 
> >  on Sat May 18 2013, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
> > > and at least Boost.Build should have its final layout.
> > 
> > I think maybe I disagree.
> 
> We definetly need to make some changes to the Boost.Build layout.

The question is, when to do them.

> Currently, we direct both "tools/build" and "tools/jam" to the "build"
> repository, then we want that repository to be a submodule in boost at the
> location "build".
> Hence, the directory "tools/build/v2" will appear as "tools/build/build/v2"
> which is not the same layout as in SVN.

Yes, this is clearly not what we want. But where does "tools/jam" come from? 
It is not in the current svn layout anymore. Seems to be some v1 relict. Can 
you investigate this?

> We could either use "tools/build" or "tools/build/v2" the root of
> repository "build". But we need to put the submodule at that exact location.
> Everything that is not matched (eg. jam/, index.html), can remain in the
> meta-repository "boost".

We wanted  "tools/build"  to contain the current "tools/build/v2" of svn. I 
wonder if we should do the final move after the transition to git. Or just move 
the files _now_ and adjust the toplevel scripts before the transition. 

> Which one do you prefer?

Nevertheless +1 for "tools/build" from my side if this works smoothly.

The main culprit is that I don't even have a "tools/build" submodule at the 
moment.

Yours,

Jürgen
-- 
* Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold  ! 
* voice: ++49 4257 300       ! Fährstraße 1
* fax  : ++49 4257 300       ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen
* jhunold_at_gmx.eu             ! Germany