Re: Moving "sub" libraries to their own repositories

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-03-08 20:21:03

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 3:17 PM Andrey Semashev wrote:

> On 3/8/23 23:07, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> > We have (very) few cases where within a repository we have more than one
> > library inside a repository. One example is boostorg/functional whose
> > meta/libraries.json has:
> >
> > - functional
> > - functional/factory
> > - functional/forward
> > - functional/overloaded_function
> >
> > See:
> https://github.com/boostorg/functional/blob/master/meta/libraries.json
> >
> > What do we think about having separate repositories for the last three
> > above? e.g.  The second one would be boostorg/functional_factory
> >
> > Some might be better collapsed into the first library (i.e. become part
> of
> > just "functional").
> >
> > We haven't been allowing this for newer libraries, but it would be nice
> to
> > remove it from these few existing cases too.
> >
> > Ultimately meta/libraries.json in each library repository would have just
> > one  library entry.
>
> Why not just merge them all into Functional? Their headers are already
> merged, only docs and tests need to be merged.
>

That option is on the table too. Some of them have much fewer dependencies,
so there's some appeal in them being separate.  In general I favor more
fine grained smaller libraries, than more coarse grained bigger ones.

Glen