Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-21 01:14:32
Christopher Jefferson wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2010, at 21:02, Boris Schaeling wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:04:10 +0100, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> [...]3. Monolithic design.
>>> [...]I admit that the more I think of this part, the more it looks connected to the review system. I even think that dividing libraries into several layers (e.g. gold, silver and bronze), with each layer having the different requirements for entering, could help both the development and the users. It would be easier for the developers and review managers to bring new libraries into the bronze layer, while the users will know which libraries are the most stable and polished ones (specifically, the ones from the gold layer).
>> I also believe that there is not really a problem with the monolithic design. From a deployment point of view it can't be much easier than now: Download a ZIP file every three months and run bjam to build and install everything - done (assuming that you have figured out how this process works in detail; but that's not a design issue either; maybe there is a just a simple graphical installation wizard missing - then noone would need to care about all those bjam command line options?).
> The point where that breaks down is where one library is found to have a fatal flaw shortly after a release,
> you wait 6 months (or whatever) for another version of boost which fixes the bug, but also breaks the API on
> a half-dozen other libraries you use.
Is this not a maintenance releases problem again? That is, if there's mechanism to quickly roll point
release when such a flaw is discovered, then it's relatively unimportant how monolitihic a design
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk