David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Was there ever a discussion as to the layout? (A cursory search did not reveal anything)
I like what I _think_ you're suggesting we actually should do, but would you mind spelling it out for everyone's benefit?
I was trying not to prejudice the conversation if there was already reasons for the current layout... But since you ask :-) I think it would more beneficial to have each library in an individual sub directory of the boost-sandbox. Each library would still be required to follow the regular Boost layout within itself. For example I'm putting together the warnings submission and it would be nice to set it up like this: /boost-sandbox/warnings /boost/utility/warnings.hpp /libs/utility /docs/warnings.html /test /Jamfile /nowarn_unused_var_test.cpp Having the isolated subdir would remove the 3 drawbacks I mentioned. But itself has some drawbacks: 1) Some of the setup files would be duplicated. Like the boost.png, Jamfile, Jamrules, and boost-build.jam at the "top" level. But at the same time it means that the library would be truly standalone. 2) An eventual long list of directories right at the top. One advantage is the reduce complexity of management by the library authors. As it would be much easier to do things like remove a library from the sandbox after it's been accepted into Boost, a single recursive cvs remove and commit instead of finding all the files and dirs. It might even be possible to setup some form of script automation to make snapshots of the individual libraries automatically available (without CVS access). -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq