Subject: Re: [boost] RE process (prospective from a retired FreeBSD committer)...
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 17:08:32
On 1/31/2011 3:26 PM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 13:20 -0500 schrieb Edward Diener:
>> I just feel, as an end-user,
>> that going from the current monolothic Boost to a modularized Boost will
>> produce serious headaches if libraries are not in sync when an end-user
>> attempts to use them for his product. This is especially true of
>> potentially individual Boost libraries which are released at their own
>> pace with new functionality being periodically added and fixes being made.
> This is very true. However, changes in the development process do not
> necessarily imply changes for the end user: we can use individual
> projects for development, aggregate them to a release, and deliver a
> monolithic package.
Agreed. But I think it is the goal of a modularized Boost, unless I am
wrong, to be able to deliver individual libraries also as new releases
of those libraries occur. Individual libraries are easier to move around
locally on a developer's machine and lose the connection to their
dependencies which a monolitihic Boost, in its own Boost tree structure,
does not encourage.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk