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: Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-22 04:32:11

> Daniel James wrote:
> 
>> On 18 September 2014 08:31, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Maybe you should have asked such questions before aggressively pushing
>> for changes.
> 
> Maybe you could tell me, in your words, why Boost migrated from one svn repo 
> to a hundred interdependent git repos? Was that done with any purpose or 
> goal in mind, in your words?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve.
> 

My opinion is that the benefit is scalability. Boost started out as a small set of highly relevant libraries that were useful  for the majority of developers. A monolithic project made sense. Now it has grows into a large set of libraries for specific niches with varying level quality (code, docs, maintenance support), and perhaps varying levels of language support (C++14 only libs?) and modularization makes sense. 

Some examples of environment that have solved the issues of having large sets of libraries with dependencies and various levels of quality: Debian Linux, R project, python pip.

Maybe we need an independent  "apt-get" like tool for C++ libraries? Not just for boost libraries, but various other C++ libraries as well?