Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 13:44:56
Le 18/10/13 15:12, Stephen Kelly a écrit :
> On 10/18/2013 01:18 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> 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.
Sorry, but I don't remember we have had consensus about modularizing
Boost on this ML. IIRC we had consensus on moving to Git, but I can be
wrong as I could miss this thread.
>> Phase 1 was discussed several years ago when modular boost was being
>> planned. The decision was to do some limited moving of files around as part
>> of the conversion process, but only when necessary. This was part of the
>> strategy of limiting modularization changes to simplify the conversion
>> process
>
>
>> and ensure library maintainer buy-in.
> Why would a library maintainer object?
>
> Is that a hypothetical, or a real problem?
Because he is the single maintainer of the library and any change to the
library as subject to errors.
Best,
Vicente