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: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-23 05:51:44

On 22 September 2014 09:07, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?

I was against splitting up the repo in the first place, so I'm not
really the person to ask. But IMO the main (perhaps only) benefit is
that it makes version control easier. Merging under subversion was a
pain because we didn't have a coherent merge history and a monolothic
git repo would certainly have had the same problem. By splitting the
code into modules we can track what has been merged, and do things
like using the develop branch of a single library with the release
branch of other libraries.

I don't really see any direct benefit to users. Maybe if we had some
sort of package management system it could, but we don't. I suspect
that packages shouldn't have a one-to-one relationship with git
modules. The reorganisation of the MPL module might be a model for how
multiple packages could be stored in a single repo.