Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-28 10:04:16

On 11/28/2014 6:31 AM, Steven Ross wrote:
> On Thu Nov 27 2014 at 12:01:29 PM Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>> We already have an "algorithm" directory, so it might make sense to add a
>>> "sort" sub-directory and category with "spreadsort" as the first specific
>>> sort to be added.
>>
>> Do you mean a directory structure of:
>>
>> boost
>>     libs
>>       algorithm
>>         sort
>>           spreadsort
>>           ... possible other sorts
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Does this work with modular boost, submodules, and the Boost Build
>> system ? Hasn't there been lots of discussions of the difficulty of
>> having libraries other than directly under boost/libs ? If this is now
>> workable and been resolved, both via Git submodules and Boost Build, I
>> would agree with your suggestion but is there clear online documentation
>> in the modular boost wiki for setting this up ?
>>
>> The reason I suggested that 'sort' just change to 'spreadsort' was to
>> avoid the above problems, but maybe those problems are now completely
>> resolved and I just have not kept up with the discussion. Also Steven
>> Ross will want to integrate 'spreadsort' into the modular boost
>> directory structure and since this is his first contribution to Boost we
>> need to make it understandable to him how to do this.
>>
>>
> I think we want to keep it a separate library from algorithms for
> compatibility with modular boost.  boost/libs/spreadsort is fine with me.
> An alternative structure would be to have a boost/libs/sort/spreadsort
> structure, but in that case I'd be maintaining future sort contributions in
> addition to spreadsort to keep it one coherent library (which I'm willing
> to do).  Are there any preferences?

Even if it were specified as boost/libs/sort/spreadsort I think that any 
additional sorts under boost/libs/sort would be viewed as separate 
libraries, so that the onus would not be on you to maintain them but 
rather on the individual contributor. But I could be wrong about this as 
I am still unsure of how "sublibraries" are expected to work within the 
Boost tree.

The fact that you would be willing, with your sort expertise, to do so 
is great. Also be aware that for any given Boost library there can be 
more than one maintainer, with different maintainers doing vastly 
different work for any given library.