On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, James E. King III via Boost wrote:
Providing a forward is easy enough, and certainly possible to avoid things disappearing.
Thanks. I was actually more worried you might want to refactor the code and update the interface, in which case compatibility could be harder to maintain.
Nobody should be relying on a header that contains "boost/pending" in the path however.
We have to be pragmatic. This header works and provides a fundamental facility. Since it has been there for a very long time, people have grown confident enough to use it. A search on google / github shows more users than for a number of official facilities.
Maintaining a separate repository for one class is incredibly expensive. If you factor in the CI requirements for unix, windows, code coverage, static code analysis it becomes very expensive.
Maybe the problem is that cost, not the number of repositories. Setting up pretty much exactly the same tools for multiple repositories should be very easy. And the more things are split, the cheaper CI should be (fewer tests to run for each patch).
These things said, will you accept a PR into Boost.Graph adding disjoint_sets?
Just to be clear, I am only a boost user, I am not the one you need to convince. I was against the split of boost into submodules, and union-find is very related to graphs, so if the Boost.Graph maintainers are in favor of a merge, I am all for it. -- Marc Glisse