Paul A. Bristow-2 wrote
What it *has* bought us is a much more powerful version control system, but one that is also *much, much, much* more complex.
This may mean that some libraries will never be updated as their maintainers never master GIT.
I think this won't be a problem if can restrain ourselves from making elaborate usage of Git. sub-sub-modules gives me the shivers. BTW - I've been using SourceTree pretty successfully as my Git GUI interface on my MAC and have been pretty pleased with it.
I sense a continuing tension between just-a-Standard-library-and-language-extensions Sandpit/Testbed, and a very much large number of larger application-ish packages.
The testing and document challenges of these types of libraries are often rather different.
This of course is the essence of the question. I believe that the first is mostly accomplished and that we want to figure out how to move on to the second - which is a heck of a lot more difficult. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/modularization-Are-modular-releases-a-goa... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.