Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-01 07:57:06
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Steven Ross
> Sent: 01 December 2014 11:18
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
> > > 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.
> > >
> > Yes. One question is "who is the maintainer for the overall sort library?"
> > It would be nice if someone was looking at the big picture, so that
> > there was some consistency between individual sorts for docs, testing,
> > etc. There might be some overall docs, too, to help users choose
> > between algorithms without having to read about each sort algorithm
> > Steven, are you interested in that role?
> Yes, I'm willing to perform that role.
> The question seems to boil down to: do we have algorithm/sort/spreadsort, or
> sort/spreadsort? Either way, sort should probably be its own submodule.
> still the concern from Rene that sub-sub-modules can be difficult for others
> together properly (for the purpose of building a minimal necessary subset).
> been resolved?
> My inclination is that unless the maintainer of the algorithm library would
> new sub-submodule, and the concerns about the difficulty of building a minimal
> subset aren't resolved, I'd rather have this as its own module: sort.
GIT is already causing some brain pain.
So I think we should be rather cautious about nesting the modules any deeper
I'd favour starting at libs/sort , despite some logical sugar in adding it to
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830