Re: [boost] Moving "sub" libraries to their own repositories
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:21 PM Glen Fernandes via Boost
In general I favor more fine grained smaller libraries, than more coarse grained bigger ones.
I prefer this as well and I have three libraries in development now which form a logical whole: buffers http_io http_proto These would each have to pass individual review and I suspect that our review process has not been vetted for the model where a larger work is proposed as several individual libraries. Thanks
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 3:44 PM Vinnie Falco wrote:
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:21 PM Glen Fernandes wrote:
In general I favor more fine grained smaller libraries, than more coarse grained bigger ones.
I prefer this as well and I have three libraries in development now which form a logical whole:
buffers http_io http_proto
These would each have to pass individual review and I suspect that our review process has not been vetted for the model where a larger work is proposed as several individual libraries.
If they're separate libraries, they should be reviewed individually (and serially, since we never have reviews in parallel). I don't see why our review process can't handle that. If the concern is that they cannot be reviewed individually, and must be reviewed together, then they should probably be one library. (But I can't see why this would be the case) Glen
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:55 PM Glen Fernandes
If they're separate libraries, they should be reviewed individually (and serially, since we never have reviews in parallel). I don't see why our review process can't handle that.
http_proto depends on buffers http_io depends on http_proto What if buffers and http_io get accepted but http_proto does not? lol... Thanks
participants (2)
-
Glen Fernandes -
Vinnie Falco