On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0100, Christopher Jefferson <chris@bubblescope.net> wrote:
[...]
I also believe that there is not really a problem with the monolithic design. From a deployment point of view it can't be much easier than now: Download a ZIP file every three months and run bjam to build and install everything - done (assuming that you have figured out how this process works in detail; but that's not a design issue either; maybe there is a just a simple graphical installation wizard missing - then noone would need to care about all those bjam command line options?).
The point where that breaks down is where one library is found to have a fatal flaw shortly after a release, you wait 6 months (or whatever) for another version of boost which fixes the bug, but also breaks the API on a half-dozen other libraries you use.
This is then really a problem with testing if such a disastrous bug slips through? But I think I get your point: As some libraries are changed faster than others those changes would be available to users earlier if users wouldn't need to wait for the next release date? I'm not sure though if this has really been such a problem in the past? I find the release schedule pretty good (some versions I even skipped as I just didn't have the time at that point to upgrade). Boris