Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-22 15:37:32

On 11/22/2009 03:06 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>    
>> Wait. You'd like to have releases bundle both, and you don't want to
>> provide distinct guarantees. What's the point in this split, then ?
>>      
> 1) To make the life of package maintainers (e.g. debian, ubuntu) easier.
>    

I still don't see what change they would see.

> 2) To make adoption of boost in corporate environments easier, by offering the option to only use the "core" package, potentially cherry-picking only a few of the other libraries from the "complete" package.
>    

"from the complete package" isn't an option. Either I can obtain 
official stand-alone packages or I can't. Rolling them myself (no matter 
how little work this may practically mean) is rarely an option, 
especially in the industry, as it would also imply taking 
responsibility, aka. doing some form of maintainership.

> 3) Have a first step in the direction you want to go, but sufficiently similar to the existing release mode that it may still be possible to reach agreement.
> 4) Guarantees and what actually works are two different things. Even now, Boost.MPI and Boost.Phyton are probably tested on fewer systems than other Boost libraries without external dependencies. But with respect to your question, the "core" packages would probably actually be quite stable, but without an explicit guarantee for this.
>    

accidentally stable ("stable without any explicit guarantee") is only 
marginally better than unstable. It still means one has to re-validate 
everything for each version, and a 'drop-in upgrade' is probably impossible.

     Stefan

-- 
       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...