Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: M.A. van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 05:31:09
On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:17, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM, M.A. van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 3) Why make users change their code to use 'Test2' instead of 'Test',
>>>> and then to 'Test3' in the future?
>>>
>>> That allows users to opt in to the changes.
>>
>> This is a clear example of the drawbacks of a monolithic boost distribution.
>
> What, exactly, and how it it related to monolithic structure? Opting
> in for such breaking changes is the only sensible way, IMHO.
>
The way I see it, it that Test2, Test3 is poor-mans versioning effect by creating new libraries with version numbers added in the name, .. and then shipping all three of them in a boost release? This solution gives very limited version dependency capabilities.
When boost moved to git there was an effort to reduce dependencies between libraries. One of wish -by some- was to have a future of boost where individual libraries and their version tagged dependencies would all be separate downloadable. This is not the current situation, of even a goal that’s on the agenda, but I wish it was. It would solve a lot of scalability issues IMO.
Having the current monolithic boost releases means that adding version numbers to libraries seems to be the best way forward.