Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: M.A. van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 05:31:09

On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:17, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM, M.A. van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test',
>>>> and then to 'Test3' in the future?
>>> That allows users to opt in to the changes.
>> This is a clear example of the drawbacks of a monolithic boost distribution.
> What, exactly, and how it it related to monolithic structure? Opting
> in for such breaking changes is the only sensible way, IMHO.

The way I see it, it that Test2, Test3 is poor-mans versioning effect by creating new libraries with version numbers added in the name, .. and then shipping all three of them in a boost release? This solution gives very limited version dependency capabilities.

When boost moved to git there was an effort to reduce dependencies between libraries. One of wish -by some- was to have a future of boost where individual libraries and their version tagged dependencies would all be separate downloadable. This is not the current situation, of even a goal that’s on the agenda, but I wish it was. It would solve a lot of scalability issues IMO.

Having the current monolithic boost releases means that adding version numbers to libraries seems to be the best way forward.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at