Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?

Daniel James wrote:

...

On 18 September 2014 08:31, Stephen Kelly wrote:

...

What does 'boost modularization' introduce that's new for users? Why would anyone possibly get excited about the fact that static_assert is in a library of its own?

Maybe you should have asked such questions before aggressively pushing for changes.

Maybe you could tell me, in your words, why Boost migrated from one svn repo to a hundred interdependent git repos? Was that done with any purpose or goal in mind, in your words?

Thanks,

Steve.

My opinion is that the benefit is scalability. Boost started out as a small set of highly relevant libraries that were useful for the majority of developers. A monolithic project made sense. Now it has grows into a large set of libraries for specific niches with varying level quality (code, docs, maintenance support), and perhaps varying levels of language support (C++14 only libs?) and modularization makes sense. Some examples of environment that have solved the issues of having large sets of libraries with dependencies and various levels of quality: Debian Linux, R project, python pip. Maybe we need an independent "apt-get" like tool for C++ libraries? Not just for boost libraries, but various other C++ libraries as well?