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

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-24 01:21:52

On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 06:44 -0700, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Thu May 23 2013, "Jürgen Hunold" <jhunold-AT-gmx.eu> wrote:

> > I think that a one-to-one mapping like:
> >
> > repository build : common_branches
> > {
> >   submodule of "boost" : "tools/build";
> >   content
> >   {
> >     "tools/build/" ;
> >   }
> >
> > is the way to go now. If something goes wrong, 
> 
> It will, because we'd no longer be catching tools/jam throughout
> history.  That will cause modularization to fail.
> 
> > please put "tools/jam/" somewhere else.
> 
> Yeah, that's not specific enough.  What is "somewhere else?"

Why not in a separate repository called jam that are referenced only in
relevant past commits of boost meta repository?  Boost.Build would not
be the only submodule with dependencies to other submodules, would it...
This build --> jam dependency is also gone in current boost, so I don't
understand the need to bundle all in one repository.  It complicates the
conversion and changes file structure in history. 

It is better to try as far as feasible to make the conversion an
accurate reflection of history while getting a sensible set of
repositories representing modularized libraries.  Build is no a library,
and as a tool the modularization is good enough with two historic
repositories and a build --> jam dependency in the past. Current build
repository is self contained if I understand this correctly.

> > Btw. would
> >
> > repository build : common_branches
> > {
> >   submodule of "boost" : "tools/build";
> >   content
> >   {
> >     "tools/build/v2" ;
> >   }
> >
> > be the right way to move v2 one directory up?
> 
> That would move the contents of v2 to the top level of the build repo,
> but it would also drop all the commits that historically went directly
> into tools/build/ (Boost.Build v1 mostly).  Like I said, we need
> decisions about where *everything* that was in Boost.Build—throughout
> history—belongs.

Agree that this is not smart or needed to be done in the conversion.
This step could be done with git mv at a convenient time after the
conversion.  No real need to do that as part of the conversion - it
complicates and obfuscates. 

Other build related files are in their respective repositories, this
could (or should) also be the case for all top level scripts that is
part of boost meta repository.  Is it really a pure meta repository
anyway?

only my $0.02
--
Bjørn