Re: [boost] What would make tool authors happier..

Subject: Re: [boost] What would make tool authors happier..
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-04 14:56:48

Daniel James wrote:
> I've had no problem dealing with the numeric modules. The output of 'git 
> config -f .gitmodules -l' contains pretty much everything you need to 
> know.

...

> If you're trying to find modules by walking the filesystem, you'll just 
> create problems for yourself.

Walking the filesystem produces better results in the following cases:

- when you have manually placed a (proposed) library in libs/ that is not 
yet a submodule
- when you have a Boost directory structure that has no Git metadata
- or when you have a Boost directory that doesn't have all the libraries in 
libs/ but just a subset

It's convenient for tools to be able to handle these cases and to not be 
limited to what .gitmodules says. (At other times it can indeed be 
convenient for tools to look at .gitmodules and not the filesystem, but such 
is life.)

If we're going to make modular/subset releases work, it would indeed be 
beneficial for all tools to look at libs/* and "just work" on whatever is 
there. I'd argue that it would even be necessary. We could use a separate 
manifest file to avoid looking at libs/* just to be contrary, but I see no 
point in doing so.