Subject: Re: [boost] Modularizing [Re: Anyone is interested in being review manager of âApplicationâ?]
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 03:48:13
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 9 May 2014 at 12:45, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> > If this is the case, then the main change I would suggest is that Boost
>> > needs to be easier to work with. Currently, the modular thing works
>> > kinda OK but it's a giant PITA to fork.
>> It is a giant PITA, partly because it is not modular. The git migration
>> was a migration to 100 fractured git repos, not modularized git repos.
>> If you want to modularize, then decide that that is a goal for Boost and
>> I will help.
>> I think at least one of the reasons my efforts did not get support from
>> the right people is that modularization is not currently a goal for
>> Boost. Some people in Boost think that modularization is already done. It
>> is not.
> One of the KEY absolute must have feature of a C++ 14 only Boost
> refresh would be per-library source distros.
You might be talking about duplication. I'm not sure.
> In other words, there is a separate source distro for each Boost14
> library which contains just enough of Boost for that library. One
> can, of course, copy multiple source distros into the same directory
> tree to combine libraries.
> That will forever break the perception that to use one library you
> need all of Boost. It also brings in proper dependency tracking from
> the beginning.
> Boost14 would also be the right time to start modular and stay
> modular from the beginning.
This sounds like another 'big bang' (expect explosions). However...
> I'd forget about modularising
> compatibility Boost, it is what it is.
Given that no one else responded on this point, it seems conclusive: Boost
doesn't want to make any steps (which I previously showed to be possible)
toward a goal of modularizing the code before the big bang described above.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk