[Git] Modularization of Boost.Any, Boost.Array, and Boost.StaticAssert
Hi, according to our preliminary modularization, the candidates Boost.Any, Boost.Array, and Boost.StaticAssert each have their own repository, even though each of them consists of a single header file only (disregarding tests, examples and documentation). I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments? --Daniel
Hi, On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de>wrote:
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments?
It would mean that getting a specific version of one of these libraries will potentially change the version of the other libraries. As they don't seem directly related, it might not be a good idea. DVCS repositories are cheap (on space) so is there specific reasons that would make this better? Joel Lamotte
2012/12/26 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de
wrote:
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments?
It would mean that getting a specific version of one of these libraries will potentially change the version of the other libraries. As they don't seem directly related, it might not be a good idea. DVCS repositories are cheap (on space) so is there specific reasons that would make this better?
Consistency. Boost.Utility already hosts some similarly small and unrelated libaries: CallTraits, Noncopyable, Operators, EnableIf, ... -- Daniel
On 26/12/12 11:13, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
2012/12/26 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com>
Consistency. Boost.Utility already hosts some similarly small and unrelated libaries: CallTraits, Noncopyable, Operators, EnableIf, ...
-- Daniel
Maybe the utf8_codecvt_facet should be thrown in there for good measure? It's being duplicated already.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de>wrote:
Consistency. Boost.Utility already hosts some similarly small and unrelated libaries: CallTraits, Noncopyable, Operators, EnableIf, ...
I agree it would be better to have boost.static_assert in boost.utility. For the others I don't agree. Boost.Array is more suited for Boost.Containers Boost.Any and Boost.Optional are kind of in the same domain but I'm not sure it would be a good idea to mix them, for the reasons I already stated. Joel Lamotte
on Tue Dec 25 2012, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel-AT-pfeifer-mail.de> wrote:
2012/12/26 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de
wrote:
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments?
It would mean that getting a specific version of one of these libraries will potentially change the version of the other libraries. As they don't seem directly related, it might not be a good idea. DVCS repositories are cheap (on space) so is there specific reasons that would make this better?
Consistency. Boost.Utility already hosts some similarly small and unrelated libaries: CallTraits, Noncopyable, Operators, EnableIf, ...
Well, there's also the possibility that these libraries should each have their own repository. That would be another way of achieving consistency. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Tue Dec 25 2012, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel-AT-pfeifer-mail.de> wrote:
2012/12/26 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de
wrote:
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments?
It would mean that getting a specific version of one of these libraries will potentially change the version of the other libraries. As they don't seem directly related, it might not be a good idea. DVCS repositories are cheap (on space) so is there specific reasons that would make this better?
Consistency. Boost.Utility already hosts some similarly small and unrelated libaries: CallTraits, Noncopyable, Operators, EnableIf, ...
Well, there's also the possibility that these libraries should each have their own repository. That would be another way of achieving consistency.
There is also the question of ownership. These libraries have different maintainers. Lumping them all into utility dilutes responsibility. I'd rather leave any, static_assert, and array as separate libraries. --Beman
according to our preliminary modularization, the candidates Boost.Any, Boost.Array, and Boost.StaticAssert each have their own repository, even though each of them consists of a single header file only (disregarding tests, examples and documentation).
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository. Comments?
My gut feeling is that should only happen if they all get refactored to appear under libs/utility. What's the problem in keeping them separate? John.
Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de> writes:
Hi,
according to our preliminary modularization, the candidates Boost.Any, Boost.Array, and Boost.StaticAssert each have their own repository, even though each of them consists of a single header file only (disregarding tests, examples and documentation).
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository.
Why? What would that achieve? One of the aims of Boost modularlisation effort is that projects can use a minimal version of Boost that only includes the libraries they need. The git repositories become the level of granularity for this, so the smaller they are, the better. Alex -- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)
on Sat Dec 29 2012, Alexander Lamaison <awl03-AT-doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
Daniel Pfeifer <daniel@pfeifer-mail.de> writes:
according to our preliminary modularization, the candidates Boost.Any, Boost.Array, and Boost.StaticAssert each have their own repository, even though each of them consists of a single header file only (disregarding tests, examples and documentation).
I propose to put all three of them into the Boost.Utility repository.
Why? What would that achieve?
One of the aims of Boost modularlisation effort is that projects can use a minimal version of Boost that only includes the libraries they need. The git repositories become the level of granularity for this, so the smaller they are, the better.
+1 -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
participants (7)
-
Alexander Lamaison -
Beman Dawes -
Daniel Pfeifer -
Dave Abrahams -
John Maddock -
Jookia -
Klaim - Joël Lamotte