Re: [boost] Header Inclusion practices

On 4/12/17 9:16 AM, degski via Boost wrote:

On 12 April 2017 at 09:34, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

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 Github?

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. Robert Ramey