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
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
> 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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk