Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-01 05:37:58
On 11/01/2013 10:10 AM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 09:21 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> On 10/18/2013 12:24 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> If the dependencies between repositories are analysed, the result is
>
> snip...
>
>> I'm still at a loss to reason with pushing forward with git migration
>> instead of making these changes which have demonstrated edge removal,
>> are valuable and are are easy cheap and quick.
>
> Please give some short references or explanation about what you expect
> to become harder to do after the migration.
Working with git submodules adds layers of 'hardness'.
'git grep' does not pierce submodules for one thing. A lightweight
ad-hoc use of it becomes a heavier script full of necessary tricks such
as adding '|| true' and quoting problems.
For example, to acquire the numbers I pasted here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/245078/focus=245123
I first tried to get the answer from the modularized repos.
While I can do this:
git log --oneline --author=steveire | read; echo $?'
I could find no way of wrapping that in a git submodule foreach.
Git submodules make horizontal work (ie, the kind of work that I've been
doing) harder.
> I guess if migration plans are to be reconsidered there may need to be
> a clear understanding why the added work or complexity you are
> implying is worth waiting for.
This mail is just an explanation to your query, not asking for
reconsideration.
> You should probably propose a new date for git migration with a viable
> rationale. Just saying you don't understand why migration is not on
> hold is not really fair.
Sorry, I don't intend to be unfair, and I'm not going to propose a new date.
My closing remark (the most unimportant in my mail imo) was only
pointing out that I don't understand the decision. There is a *lot* of
low-hanging fruit which is easy, cheap and valueable to pick.
Maybe it's best if you ignore my closing remark. There is nothing deeper
to it.
Thanks,
Steve.