Re: [boost] [graph] disjoint_sets

Subject: Re: [boost] [graph] disjoint_sets
From: Marc Glisse (marc.glisse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-07-17 11:50:43

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, James E. King III via Boost wrote:

> Providing a forward is easy enough, and certainly possible to avoid things
> disappearing.

Thanks. I was actually more worried you might want to refactor the code 
and update the interface, in which case compatibility could be harder to 
maintain.

> Nobody should be relying on a header that contains "boost/pending" in the
> path however.

We have to be pragmatic. This header works and provides a fundamental 
facility. Since it has been there for a very long time, people have grown 
confident enough to use it. A search on google / github shows more users 
than for a number of official facilities.

> Maintaining a separate repository for one class is incredibly expensive. 
> If you factor in the CI requirements for unix, windows, code coverage, 
> static code analysis it becomes very expensive.

Maybe the problem is that cost, not the number of repositories. Setting up 
pretty much exactly the same tools for multiple repositories should be 
very easy. And the more things are split, the cheaper CI should be (fewer 
tests to run for each patch).

> These things said, will you accept a PR into Boost.Graph adding
> disjoint_sets?

Just to be clear, I am only a boost user, I am not the one you need to 
convince. I was against the split of boost into submodules, and union-find 
is very related to graphs, so if the Boost.Graph maintainers are in favor 
of a merge, I am all for it.

-- 
Marc Glisse