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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-24 13:02:22

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Daniel James
> Sent: 23 September 2014 10:52
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a
non-goal?

> > 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 suspect that it was partly because of a desire to use a better version control
system than SVN?
(There were long discussions comparing Mercurial and GIT etc).

And a wish for a better build system - using Cmake?

And Modularity sounded a Good Thing too.

Sadly, I think that users haven't seen any benefits - yet. 

Without some sort of magic apt-get, the only downside of a big Boost package is
download time and disk space - neither really a big issue.

What it *has* bought us is a much more powerful version control system, but one
that is also *much, much, much* more complex.

This may mean that some libraries will never be updated as their maintainers
never master GIT.

I sense a continuing tension between
just-a-Standard-library-and-language-extensions Sandpit/Testbed, and a very much
large number of larger application-ish packages.

The testing and document challenges of these types of libraries are often rather
different.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]