2012/12/26 Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com>
Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
2012/12/25 Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com>
On 12/17/2012 12:25 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "real modularity".
Monolithic development (currently): There is one repository, one release cycle.
Modularized development (proposed): Each module has its own repository and release cycle.
This would suggest that each library have it's own versioning sequence.
This in turn would suggest that each library have a list of dependcies. Each entry in this list would be the the pre-requisite library along with the minimum version number required.
I think you are interpreting too much meaning into what I wrote. And I am afraid you missed the next line. But in principle, it could suggest that, yes.
Optional: Multiple release cycles may be synced. Multiple modules may
be delivered as one package.
Is there room for misunderstanding? Maybe it is unclear what Boost's future development/test/release process will be like. But the meaning of "real modularity" should be clear, no?
lol - maybe - but I think we'll see otherwise.
Other than what? FWIW I agree with
your concept of "real modularity" - but that would be a big step for us and we're not currently prepared for this.
Nobody suggested to make such a big step. But we can reach this point in multiple small steps if we keep "real modularity" in focus. -- Daniel