Subject: Re: [boost] Header Inclusion practices
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 16:46:12
On 4/12/17 9:16 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On 12 April 2017 at 09:34, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> After considering all this, I'm thinking we should should just drop the
>> zipfile distribution. The whole focus on "release" should be assign the
>> magic tag to the master in github - "Release 1.63".
> This seems a great idea, some time ago, on this list, I was getting dissed
> for claiming that an average windows developer was able to open a developer
> command prompt and lanch a boost build from there. The common opinion
> seemed to be that that's not to be expected.
> But now we leap to the other end, everybody should install and learn git,
> notoriously obscure and alien to windows users, in order to build and use
> boost! Or do you mean I should just download the snapshot zip-file on
LOL - now you've reminded me that I use SourceTree for navigating git.
This has made git itself with it's ridiculous command line syntax
invisible to me. I see that this distorted my vision here.
> ... build and distribute the zipfiles ...
> You make it sound very complicated.
It's not that it's not doable, it's just seems more awkward than than
using SourceTree to hook into the git repo.
>> By adopting this point of view, and a couple small changes (e.g. requiring
>> html documentation inside each project) we would have a "modular boost"
>> which is much easier to maintain and work with.
> Unless all the interdependencies between libraries are removed, I don't see
> how boost can ever be modular in a meaningfull way.
I don't see this. My expectation is that one will clone the whole boost
library tree and one my one add on other non-boost libraries. So for
me, the situation doesn't come up.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk