Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 17:32:50
On 10/31/2013 10:14 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> I would agree with calling that small, but no further work on
>> modularization is likely to be done. I'm not willing to do any such
>> horizontal work after the move to git, so someone else would have to
>> step up to do it.
> I think it was unfortunate that the git transition has got mixed up
> with modularisation. The two are quite different, but together they
> create a lot more change (and breakage) than either alone would.
I agree 100%.
If you choose a big bang you have to expect explosions :).
>>> how many of them pull in a dependency only to
>>> never use it or use it very lightly?
>> I never counted, but 'at least some and maybe several'. Where I
>> arbitrarily define some < several by an order of magnitude of 3 or so :).
>>> How many pull in dependencies
>>> which can now be replaced with C++11 standard libraries instead? That
>>> sort of thing.
>> Probably less than 'some' above. I realise that that's meaningless
>> without some quantified baseline :).
> Useful to know, and you know more here than most, even if it is just
> the shape of what is unknown. I suspect a libclang AST grokker could
> tell us the detailed truth here, but that's a lot of work to
It would be less work and more understandable to just do the work. This
is not a tools problem :).
> I would say that removing libraries is an excellent way of
> discovering trivial dependencies, and increasing modularisation
Just trying to do so is also an excellent way to do that too. I'm glad
my report produced some of that grade of modularization work.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk