on Wed Apr 11 2012, Andrii Sydorchuk <sydorchuk.andriy-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I can see, scaling Boost up to a much larger number of libraries implies decentralization and decoupling, probably in the form of per-library modules or something similar. Modularization seems to have been missed in the discussions of Subversion, Git, and Mercurial. Do distributed version control systems in general and Git in particular have any important advantages/disadvantages over svn for highly modularized projects? Please, let's not waste everyone's time with a rehash of general DCVS vs CCVS pros and cons. We have beat that to death. Let's focus this thread on modularization support, particularly as it applies to Boost.
Completely agree! I am not sure if I am using the same definition of "modularization", but here are my thoughts:
I would like to see the top level modularization by category, as the one listed here: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/?view=categorized This should make the library more usable and easier to explore for a new users. For example its much easier to explore Container libraries in case all of them are under top level directory with the same name.
IMO that won't work for lots of reasons, not least that some libraries are in multiple categories. It makes sense to have a tagged index that makes it easy to explore, but not, IMO, to tie that to physical location of the repositories. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com