Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Regression testing modular Boost
From: Daniel Pfeifer (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-25 19:37:31
2012/12/26 Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
> Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > 2012/12/25 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
> >> On 12/17/2012 12:25 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >> I don't know what you mean by "real modularity".
> > Monolithic development (currently): There is one repository, one
> > release cycle.
> > Modularized development (proposed): Each module has its own
> > repository and release cycle.
> This would suggest that each library have it's own versioning sequence.
> This in turn would suggest that each library have a list of dependcies.
> Each entry in this list would be the the pre-requisite library along with
> the minimum version number required.
I think you are interpreting too much meaning into what I wrote. And I am
afraid you missed the next line. But in principle, it could suggest that,
> Optional: Multiple release cycles may be synced. Multiple modules may
> > be delivered as one package.
> > Is there room for misunderstanding? Maybe it is unclear what Boost's
> > future development/test/release process will be like. But the meaning
> > of "real modularity" should be clear, no?
> lol - maybe - but I think we'll see otherwise.
Other than what?
FWIW I agree with
> your concept of "real modularity" - but that would be a big step for
> us and we're not currently prepared for this.
Nobody suggested to make such a big step. But we can reach this point in
multiple small steps if we keep "real modularity" in focus.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk