Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-24 17:16:12
Paul A. Bristow-2 wrote
> 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
> never master GIT.
I think this won't be a problem if can restrain ourselves from making
usage of Git. sub-sub-modules gives me the shivers.
BTW - I've been using SourceTree pretty successfully as my Git GUI interface
on my MAC and have been pretty pleased with it.
> 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
This of course is the essence of the question. I believe that the first is
mostly accomplished and that we want to figure out how to move on to
the second - which is a heck of a lot more difficult.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/modularization-Are-modular-releases-a-goal-or-a-non-goal-tp4667684p4667902.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk