Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 05:38:34

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:31 PM, M.A. van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

No, it's more than just poor-man's versioning. The key point is that
Test, Test2 and Test3 are different libraries that are maintained
separately (from the user's perspective) and can be used side by side.
If a library or user's code sticks to C++03 for whatever reason, it
can keep using Test and receive updates for it in a timely manner.
This is not achieved by simply having different versions of Test
available for download, even if multiple versions could be somehow
used together in a single build of Boost or user's application.

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