Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build 2014.10
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-05 12:14:23
Vladimir Prus-3 wrote
> Turned out that github release system is fairly easy to use, so I should
> be able to push
> releases more often in future.
This is very interesting. The same comment could/should apply to all
libraries. I think this is the direction we want to be moving to. But it
raises a number of questions regarding:
Deployment - full and partial
what happens with the latest version of build (or any other library or tool
depends upon something not release yet. How is this detected and
controlled?). What happens when one want's to deeply a porting of boost via
BCP or otherwise.
We've discussed this before and I think this has been productive. But we
still have some issues related to what dependencies we want to track.
applications, tests, examples, library build etc. The there is the issue of
"bridge libraries" which we're struggling with.
Our testing infrastructure has served us very well. But I'm concerned that
its coverage has begun to narrow to Clang, GCC and MSVC. I'm also concerned
that it can't continue to scale. And finally we don't have a way to deal
with partial deployments - which I believe we will eventually have to
I have some ideas about some of these. I don't see a grand change. I think
we've done very well in getting the "modular boost" working well. I'm
hoping that we can leverage on that to evolve in a way which addresses the
above concerns. Perhaps Vladimir's idea is a good place to start. We can
do this and see how it works out.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Build-2014-10-tp4668736p4668746.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