When Boost modularization and Git migration coupling were accepted on this ML?
Hi, I would not take the time to inspect all the post relating to this subject. There are a lot of post related to the subject, a lot of discussion, but what I'm locking for is a decision. So please don't replay to this post by telling me, you have just to use this tool or this other tool to have the answer. If you consider that this post is bicksheding or a bad post, please, just ignore it. I remember a post that deceded to move to Git long time ago. I would just know if (and when) the Boost community has decided to couple the move to Git and the Boost modularization. And i would like to know also if changes to the trunk repository without requesting authors permission were allowed on this move. Who accepted the plan described by S. Kelly ? Who gave him the right to update the whole Boost repository? Was this discussed on this ML or on a specific ML that is not an official Boost ML? Le 18/10/13 00:24, Stephen Kelly a écrit :
my plan for modularizing and modernizing Boost was roughly this:
* Phase 0 - remove dead weight by bumping compiler feature requirements * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a mostly directed graph * Phase 2 - Form some kind of 'boost core library' or 'boost feature normalization library' from the guts of existing libraries like type_traits, static_assert, config mpl and utilities. * Phase 3 - Try to port the mpl to variadic templates so that the dependency on Boost.PP is not needed when variadic templates are available.
Apologies if this is clear for most of you. IMHO, this kind of decisions should be posted with an explicit title. Best, Vicente
on Sat Oct 19 2013, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"
Who gave [S. Kelly] the right to update the whole Boost repository?
I did.
Was this discussed on this ML or on a specific ML that is not an official Boost ML?
Probably not. Steve had posted his patches, but there was little or no response. In practice, whole-repository improvements only get made by very brave old-timers because it's impossible to generate across-the-board approval for a large patchset covering many libraries. I made an executive decision to trust Steve with the changes he was making. That is not to say that I necessarily endorse all elements of his plan. I trust that he won't make any major changes without first generating consensus. -- Dave Abrahams
On 10/19/2013 12:12 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Who accepted the plan described by S. Kelly ?
The plan existed only in my head. Phase 0 was discussed, partly executed, and then aborted. Phase 1 was discussed, but was not accepted. The other phases were not discussed or accepted. I hope that clears something up for you. Steve.
Le 18/10/13 00:24, Stephen Kelly a écrit :
my plan for modularizing and modernizing Boost was roughly this:
* Phase 0 - remove dead weight by bumping compiler feature requirements * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a mostly directed graph * Phase 2 - Form some kind of 'boost core library' or 'boost feature normalization library' from the guts of existing libraries like type_traits, static_assert, config mpl and utilities. * Phase 3 - Try to port the mpl to variadic templates so that the dependency on Boost.PP is not needed when variadic templates are available.
participants (3)
-
Dave Abrahams -
Stephen Kelly -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba