Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: BjÃ¸rn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-31 08:04:02
On 05/31/2014 01:41 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2014 13:23:56 BjÃ¸rn Roald wrote:
>> I am not sure the Grief need to be so bad. Are you assuming all modules
>> have to be maintained in separate Git repositories? That does not have
>> to be the case.
> Can you actually download a part of a git repository? If not, I think this
> kind of defeats the modularization purpose, which is basically to reduce the
> amount of code you need to download to obtain a minimal part of Boost. E.g. to
> use Boost.Conversion you would still need to download the whole Boost.Math.
That is assuming you need to use Git as the means to deploy boost
Boost.Conversion onto your system. That may be a fair assumption if you
are a boost developer, but it need not be the case if you are a user.
Besides that I think Conversion already lives in its own Git repo.
Further, my way of thinking about modules will not prevent maintainers
of Boost.Math or other libraries to split or move modules into multiple
repositories. However, forcing a one module in one repository policy
will have a lot of issues, and IMHO it will not be feasible to make a
clean model of what modules are.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk