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.