on Tue Feb 28 2012, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Feb 09 2012, greened-AT-obbligato.org wrote:
[...]
I don't think git-subtree is the right tool for us. Suppose libraries A and B both depend on libraries C and D. It would IMO be a disaster if the repositories for A and B each included the source to C and D.
I might have misunderstood, but my impression was that git-subtree was not intended to be used like that in the first place. If I understood correctly, A, B, C and D would all be subtrees of the Boost supertree, and developers would be able to tranparently treat any subtree either as a separate git repository or as an ordinary directory within the Boost repository at any given time. So both A and B would only include itself, and C and D wouldn't be included by anything other than the Boost supertree.
I don't see any advantage at all in having a "Boost supertree." If I need a cluster of five libraries to get a job done, I don't see a reason to mess around with anything more than those five. And with the dependencies properly encoded, I won't even have to ask for all of those explicitly. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com