On 31 Oct 2013 at 20:30, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Are you referring to the 11 packages that would remain interconnected after all of my suggestions were implemented? Some of my suggestions were implemented, but not all.
Yes I was. I obviously misunderstood, I thought that was going to happen eventually, or something close.
I would agree with calling that small, but no further work on modularization is likely to be done. I'm not willing to do any such horizontal work after the move to git, so someone else would have to step up to do it.
I think it was unfortunate that the git transition has got mixed up with modularisation. The two are quite different, but together they create a lot more change (and breakage) than either alone would.
how many of them pull in a dependency only to never use it or use it very lightly?
I never counted, but 'at least some and maybe several'. Where I arbitrarily define some < several by an order of magnitude of 3 or so :).
How many pull in dependencies which can now be replaced with C++11 standard libraries instead? That sort of thing.
Probably less than 'some' above. I realise that that's meaningless without some quantified baseline :).
Useful to know, and you know more here than most, even if it is just the shape of what is unknown. I suspect a libclang AST grokker could tell us the detailed truth here, but that's a lot of work to implement. I would say that removing libraries is an excellent way of discovering trivial dependencies, and increasing modularisation [cackle!]. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/