Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-22 15:02:27
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg wrote:
> > Now it has grows into a
> > large set of libraries for specific niches with varying level quality
> > (code, docs, maintenance support)
> Really? Is that what it is? Are you sure? Or is that a goal you have in
> mind? Is that what boost was while it was in svn? Or did boost become that
> by migrating to 100 *interdependent* git repos? Did migrating to 100
> *interdependent* git repos help the above statement in any way?
Reducing physical coupling is a good thing even if you use a single repo.
Modularizing Boost does make it practical to break it down into separate
repos, which allows users to git only what they need. I don't see how this
interferes with users who want to get everything Boost if the official
distribution remains monolithic.
-- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk