Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-09 10:24:34

David Abrahams wrote:

> Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>I think we should start to discuss the possibility of having individual
>>releases (as Spirit is doing right now) instead of one monolithic
> Why? It seems impossible to manage when boost libraries depend on
> other boost libraries. How will we test them when several libraries
> are nearing release? And what is wrong with the current procedure,
> which only just seems to have matured a few releases ago? Shouldn't
> we give it a chance to work?

By all means, we should give it a chance to work. I hope I did not
give an impression that I am going against the grain. I just wanted
to get your opinions.

>>I'm sure you are all starting to feel the weight. At some point, when boost
>>assimilates more libraries, a monolithic release might take forever. This
>>seems to go against the open source mantra "release early, release often".
>>There will be issues, of course. Spirit is experiencing some of them now.
>>For instance, which version of Spirit works with which version of Boost
>>is a common question. Thoughts?
> Mine are: avoid that problem by releasing as part of the boost
> release. That's what branch-for-release is all about.

Fine. And that's what we are doing right now. However, it just so
happens that Spirit has a more frequent release cycle with 2
concurrent releases (odd minor version: developmental and even
minor version: stable). Are you saying that we abandon that and
follow the boost release cycle?

Again, please don't get me wrong. I'm just asking for opinions.
Is a single monolithic release a better solution? Is it not a
good idea for sub-libraries, such as Spirit, to have its own
release cycle? Can't we have both? What are the pros and cons?

Thanks and Regards,

Joel de Guzman

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at