Re: [Boost-users] Storing boost as a 'vendor library' within svn and minimising it's size

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Storing boost as a 'vendor library' within svn and minimising it's size
From: Robert Jones (robertgbjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-15 03:40:24

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:43 PM, <Kevin.Stevens_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I agree that it is awkward, and can seriously deteriorate the performance
> of some source control systems, but it is common and often necessary. I have
> even heard of some firms that put their compilers and build tools under
> source control as well, so that at any point in time in the future, they can
> go back and recreate a build, if they still have compatible hardware.  Some
> systems like Perforce really didn't deal well (as of ~5 years ago) with a
> large number of large binaries in the system.
>
>
Why necessary? I have worked in environments in which the Boost libraries
are under svn control,
and consider the practise to be a total disaster, which I would move heaven
& earth to avoid in future!
The Boost libraries are pretty huge, which makes a full checkout a fairly
heavyweight task, which
strongly discourages "experimental" activity in a temporary checkout.
Putting Boost under SVN also
tends to nail-down the version since updating to more recent Boost (and
possibly reverting later)
becomes quite high cost compared to touching a path in a makefile somewhere.

A released Boost version is (I believe) a completely fixed thing, so putting
in a system whose
purpose is track change seems bizarre to me.

Just my $0.02 worth.

- Rob.