On 24/07/2014 12:28 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
I guess that you would not want to maintain the backends for the umpteen databases.
+1
I don't know what the best approach is. Maybe you provide backends for the most popular databases and let others provide backends for the rest?
I'll definitely be doing that, but it leaves open the question of how to organise it.
I don't think that there is a precedent for this situation.
Personally, I would prefer the individual repositories. It makes it easier to distribute the work load and you would not have to decide which databases to include in the main repositories and which to keep out. It would therefore also emphasize the vendor neutrality of the main library.
I agree that any approach I take should be uniform, i.e. not one approach for some databases and another approach for others. I take your point about the benefit of multiple git repositories to aid distributed development efforts. To be clear: that is separate from the question "One .lib output or many?", and also separate from the question "One subdir of boost/libs or many?" Regards, --- Michael