Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)

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.