On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:13:49 +0200, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> 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.
Modularization has its advantage for sure anyway it has to be evaluated carefully because managing a multi-repository project can require a lot of discipline. For instance lately LibreOffice has switched from a multi git repository layout to a monolithic one [1], because handling them separately was become a mess. I want to be clear I am not against modularization but I think also that we should be aware of any drawback of this solution. [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/One_Git_Conversion Regards, -- Marco -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/