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: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-18 09:51:05

On 09/18/2014 02:29 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:

>> So that seems like offering a users a fairly inconvenient, if not useless,
>> way to obtain Boost components, and so such choice seems more like trouble
>> to me.
>
> Whether it's useless depends on how many split tarballs there are and what
> they contain. There are many ways to split. The 'many small core libraries'
> could all be together for example. But don't get attached to details: I'm
> saying there are many ways to split.

Fair enough.

>>> 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?
>>
>> I don't follow the logic of your questions.
>
> Do you follow logic of the question "What does 'boost modularization'
> introduce that's new for users?" ?
>
> Putting boost-static_assert in a library of it's own is part of modularizing
> boost, and I'm told it's a good thing that it's in a library of it's own.
> How would any 'good thing' from 'modularized boost' translate to 'a good
> thing' for users of boost?

In this particular case, I don't believe it's a good thing at all,
but as you said above, there are many ways to split, so let's move on
to your next point.

>
> What is the 'user story' of modularized boost? Most users use the download
> link in boost.org, right? They don't use the git repos. What changes?
>
> Modularization of the git repos changes the 'developer story', but how does
> the 'user story' change?

If there's a consensus on that, I haven't heard it. I heard vague suggestions that
modulization would permit individual libraries to have their own release schedule,
but it was never spelled out how that would work for users - like how the users
would obtain everything they need, make sure it's supposed to work together and
verify that it does, and so forth.

What Niall say in this thread (i.e. "JQuery model") is closest to a workable proposal
that I've heard - although the idea to run a separate site for that rings a few bells.

>> Could you spell out the final destination you're after?
>
> I'm trying to find out whether this thing is a goal or a non-goal, and if it
> is a non-goal, then is there a different 'user story' to aim for.

It seems that some way for users to get a desirable subset of Boost will be valuable,
but I don't know whether it is "official" goal in any sense, and implementation is just
as important as general goal, so it's hard to agree on a goal without somebody
sketching how it will work.

- Volodya