Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-23 10:57:56
Daniel James wrote:
> 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.
Well, that's seems to be a good reason to push for it. In this thread I
asked if there are any additional user-oriented goals for modularization. It
is conclusive that there are not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk