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 http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk