Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-18 03:31:07

Vladimir Prus wrote:

>> Is something similar to this a goal or a non-goal for 'Boost
>> modularization'?
> 
> It looks that unless you, or somebody else, writes npm-for-c++, then the
> huge amount of modules in Boost will make any such modular tarballs be a
> disservice to users.

A disservice to users? How so?

There are several such npm-like things. The problem isn't choosing or 
writing one, but adoption. A prerequisite to it being operational is modular 
releases, so all you're doing is designing catch-22 situations for me to 
answer.

> It's must easier to just close everything and remove
> a couple of components that take up 90% of source size.

Users have always had that option. 

What does 'boost modularization' introduce that's new for users? Why would 
anyone possibly get excited about the fact that static_assert is in a 
library of its own? How does that fact affect users of boost in any way?

> (Preemptive snarky comment: Qt does not need npm, since the number of
> modules is relatively small, and many of them are truly optional)

Tell me how the 'truly optional' phrase applies or does not apply to boost 
modules. It's not clear what comparison you're drawing here.

Thanks,

Steve.