on Wed Apr 11 2012, Bjørn Roald <bjorn-AT-4roald.org> wrote:
On 04/11/2012 04:15 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
The use of 0install makes modularization a non-issue where the DVCS is concerned, so I truly don't think it's worth hashing over the different ways you can handle this with Hg or Git or SVN.
Oinstall based solution sounds like it is worth investigating, but I am a bit concerned you are concluding too fast here that DVCS alternatives for inter module dependency management is not needed. As you have stated in an earlier post, most boost developers are only working on one boost library, hence a 0install solution for pulling inn all dependencies sounds like it will meet the requirements - I agree on that. However, what about when there is a need to work on more than one library? Or for that sake a boost wide fix due to changes in config, boostbook, quickbook, build, etc. What then?
Daniel Pfeifer had a wonderful idea, that we provide a simple way to assemble a CMake project that includes all the parts you want to work on. Of course, you're welcome to set up whatever repositories you like, with whatever submodules you like, for your own purposes.
I guess more add-hoc use of submodule, subtree, subrepo, externals, or whatever may be set up by a script, or in worst case even manually. For that to be reasonably simple, it may however require some preference alignment within boost for what (D)VCS to use and how to set it up.
I'm strongly of the opinion that it will be better for users and developers if everything in Boost uses the same infrastructure technology. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com