所以我们在项目中有这个巨大的mainmodule.cpp源文件(11000行很大吗?)，每次我不得不触摸它时，我都会畏缩。
由于这个文件是如此的核心和大，它不断积累越来越多的代码，我想不出一个好方法来让它实际上开始缩小。
该文件在我们产品的几个(> 10)维护版本中被使用和积极更改，因此很难重构它。如果我“简单地”将其拆分为3个文件，那么从维护版本合并回更改将成为一场噩梦。而且，如果您拆分具有如此长而丰富历史的文件，跟踪和检查SCC历史中的旧更改突然变得非常困难。
这个文件基本上包含了我们程序的“主类”(主要的内部工作调度和协调)，所以每次添加一个特性，它也会影响这个文件，每次它的增长。：-(
在这种情况下你会怎么做?关于如何在不打乱SCC工作流程的情况下将新特性移动到单独的源文件中，您有什么想法吗?
(注意:我们使用c++和Visual Studio;我们使用AccuRev作为SCC，但我认为SCC的类型在这里并不重要;我们使用Araxis Merge来做实际的文件比较和合并)
当前回答
如果我理解错了，请指正。
为什么不能将源代码拆分为函数或类(单独的.h/.cpp文件)并将它们作为头文件包含?当然，一定会重用一些功能。
这将是一个开始。
其他回答
我想在这种情况下我该做的就是咬紧牙关
Figure out how I wanted to split the file up (based on the current development version) Put an administrative lock on the file ("Nobody touch mainmodule.cpp after 5pm Friday!!!" Spend your long weekend applying that change to the >10 maintenance versions (from oldest to newest), up to and including the current version. Delete mainmodule.cpp from all supported versions of the software. It's a new Age - there is no more mainmodule.cpp. Convince Management that you shouldn't be supporting more than one maintenance version of the software (at least without a big $$$ support contract). If each of your customers have their own unique version.... yeeeeeshhhh. I'd be adding compiler directives rather than trying to maintain 10+ forks.
跟踪文件的旧更改简单地通过您的第一个签入注释来解决，例如“从mainmodule.cpp分离”。如果你需要回顾最近的东西，大多数人会记得这个变化，如果是2年后，评论会告诉他们从哪里看。当然，回溯到2年前，看看是谁修改了代码以及为什么修改代码，这有多大价值呢?
“这个文件基本上包含了我们程序的‘主类’(主要的内部工作调度和协调)，所以每次添加一个特性，它也会影响这个文件，每次它的增长。”
如果这个大的SWITCH(我认为是有的)成为主要的维护问题，你可以重构它，使用字典和命令模式，并从现有的代码中删除所有的开关逻辑到加载器，加载器填充该映射，即:
// declaration
std::map<ID, ICommand*> dispatchTable;
...
// populating using some loader
dispatchTable[id] = concreteCommand;
...
// using
dispatchTable[id]->Execute();
Find some code in the file which is relatively stable (not changing fast, and doesn't vary much between branches) and could stand as an independent unit. Move this into its own file, and for that matter into its own class, in all branches. Because it's stable, this won't cause (many) "awkward" merges that have to be applied to a different file from the one they were originally made on, when you merge the change from one branch to another. Repeat. Find some code in the file which basically only applies to a small number of branches, and could stand alone. Doesn't matter whether it's changing fast or not, because of the small number of branches. Move this into its own classes and files. Repeat.
因此，我们去掉了到处都一样的代码，以及特定于某些分支的代码。
This leaves you with a nucleus of badly-managed code - it's needed everywhere, but it's different in every branch (and/or it changes constantly so that some branches are running behind others), and yet it's in a single file that you're unsuccessfully trying to merge between branches. Stop doing that. Branch the file permanently, perhaps by renaming it in each branch. It's not "main" any more, it's "main for configuration X". OK, so you lose the ability to apply the same change to multiple branches by merging, but this is in any case the core of code where merging doesn't work very well. If you're having to manually manage the merges anyway to deal with conflicts, then it's no loss to manually apply them independently on each branch.
我认为你说这种SCC无关紧要是错误的，因为例如git的合并能力可能比你正在使用的合并工具更好。因此，核心问题“合并困难”发生在不同scc的不同时期。但是，您不太可能更改scc，因此这个问题可能无关紧要。
我发现有一件事很有用(我现在正在做，尽管没有达到你所面临的规模)，那就是将方法提取为类(方法对象重构)。不同版本中不同的方法将成为不同的类，这些类可以被注入到公共库中，以提供您所需的不同行为。
哇，听起来不错。我认为向你的老板解释，你需要很多时间来重构这头野兽值得一试。如果他不同意，你可以选择辞职。
Anyway, what I suggest is basically throwing out all the implementation and regrouping it into new modules, let's call those "global services". The "main module" would only forward to those services and ANY new code you write will use them instead of the "main module". This should be feasible in a reasonable amount of time (because it's mostly copy and paste), you don't break existing code and you can do it one maintenance version at a time. And if you still have any time left, you can spend it refactoring all old depending modules to also use the global services.
