On 1/31/2011 3:26 PM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 13:20 -0500 schrieb Edward Diener:
I just feel, as an end-user, that going from the current monolothic Boost to a modularized Boost will produce serious headaches if libraries are not in sync when an end-user attempts to use them for his product. This is especially true of potentially individual Boost libraries which are released at their own pace with new functionality being periodically added and fixes being made.
This is very true. However, changes in the development process do not necessarily imply changes for the end user: we can use individual projects for development, aggregate them to a release, and deliver a monolithic package.
Agreed. But I think it is the goal of a modularized Boost, unless I am wrong, to be able to deliver individual libraries also as new releases of those libraries occur. Individual libraries are easier to move around locally on a developer's machine and lose the connection to their dependencies which a monolitihic Boost, in its own Boost tree structure, does not encourage.