[boost] Boost, Decoupled and Accelerated

4 views
Skip to first unread message

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 12:04:09 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org

Hi All,

I know I'm not the first person to notice that, as Boost has grown, it
has become harder and harder to manage, Subversion is getting slow,
our issue tracker is full to overflowing, and the release process is a
full-time job. For me, this situation has taken a lot of the fun out
of participating. It's time to make Boost development fun again.

To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
libraries. I will be holding a session

**Tuesday night at BoostCon**

to formally unveil this system and demonstrate it in action, and I
intend to propose that Boost make the move immediately thereafter. I
believe this project has the potential to change the face not only of
Boost, but of open-source software in general.

By the time of BoostCon, ryppl will be live, and we'll be able to use
it to work on Boost. I encourage anyone who is interested in these
developments to register for BoostCon immediately.

If you're interested in working on development of this system,
*please* send me an email; we can really use your help. Be
forewarned, though: this may not operate like many other open-source
projects. Given the short period of time remaining before the
conference, we have little time for design discussion and debate, and
we need to be maximally effective: there's simply no time to waste.
You can expect me to take a “Benevolent Dictator” role, if not “For
Life,” (BDFL) then at least “For the Time Being” (BDFTB).

Cheers,

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

joel falcou

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 12:27:59 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I know I'm not the first person to notice that, as Boost has grown, it
> has become harder and harder to manage, Subversion is getting slow,
> our issue tracker is full to overflowing, and the release process is a
> full-time job. For me, this situation has taken a lot of the fun out
> of participating. It's time to make Boost development fun again.
>
> To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries. I will be holding a session
>
> **Tuesday night at BoostCon**
>
Count me in. This is rather required. If I can help at least with
testing that as a potential user, feel free.
Question: Is Ryppl boost-centric or can it be used as a stand-alone
system for otehr OS project ?

--
___________________________________________
Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor
PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI
Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 12:44:16 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:27:59 +0100,

joel falcou wrote:
>
> Count me in. This is rather required. If I can help at least with
> testing that as a potential user, feel free.

Thanks! When I'm ready to solicit testers, I'll make an announcement.

> Question: Is Ryppl boost-centric or can it be used as a stand-alone
> system for otehr OS project ?

The latter. Boost, and each of its libraries, will each be just one
among many ryppl projects.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

joel falcou

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 12:47:08 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> Thanks! When I'm ready to solicit testers, I'll make an announcement.
>
Sorry to not be able knowledgable enough to help before :(

> The latter. Boost, and each of its libraries, will each be just one
> among many ryppl projects.
>
Great. I may have need for such a system for our own project that may
end up quite large and require
"componentability".

--
___________________________________________
Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor
PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI
Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35

Gennadiy Rozental

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 2:12:40 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:

> To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries. I will be holding a session

Does it mean we'll have independent versioning for each boost library? If yes, i
am both hands up for it. I was advocating this last time boost development
procedures were updated.

Gennadiy

Mathias Gaunard

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 2:12:59 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries.

Did you forget the link to the website, or did you purposely miss it out
to build up the suspense ;)?

joel falcou

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 2:15:27 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Does it mean we'll have independent versioning for each boost library? If yes, i
> am both hands up for it. I was advocating this last time boost development
> procedures were updated.
>
Never tought of that. It makes a lot of sense. Count my both hands too

--
___________________________________________
Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor
PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI
Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35

Anteru

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 3:06:18 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
Hi,

> I know I'm not the first person to notice that, as Boost has grown, it
> has become harder and harder to manage, Subversion is getting slow,
> our issue tracker is full to overflowing, and the release process is a

(from a long-time Boost user's perspective)

If this means we can ...
* more easily cherry-pick parts of Boost
* get updates quicker

I'm all for it :) As long as building Boost remains simple, this will
make it much easier to promote Boost to new users. Is
http://www.ryppl.org/ the correct (read: lastest and greatest) website
for this?

Cheers,
Anteru

Roland Bock

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 4:46:35 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I know I'm not the first person to notice that, as Boost has grown, it
> has become harder and harder to manage, Subversion is getting slow,
> our issue tracker is full to overflowing, and the release process is a
> full-time job. For me, this situation has taken a lot of the fun out
> of participating. It's time to make Boost development fun again.
>
Not sure how much time I can offer, but I'd like to contribute to
testing on Linux. At my company, we have some hundred modules (mostly
libraries and plugins) with a nice amount of dependencies. Our current
build system is based on CMake. I'd be interested in seeing how the two
systems compare, and (maybe) offering one or two suggestions, too...

A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing bug
tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without compromising the
dramatics for BoostCon :-)

How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?

Regards,

Roland

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 11:08:33 PM3/16/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:12:59 +0000,

Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> > called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> > installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> > libraries.
>
> Did you forget the link to the website, or did you purposely miss it out
> to build up the suspense ;)?

The latter ;-)

I'll probably announce the website soon.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

Phil Richards

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 4:26:49 AM3/17/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 23:08 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:12:59 +0000,
> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> > > Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> > > called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> > > installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> > > libraries.
> > Did you forget the link to the website, or did you purposely miss it out
> > to build up the suspense ;)?
> The latter ;-)
> I'll probably announce the website soon.

You'd better hope that nobody did what I did when you first mentioned
ryppl and type the name into google...

Looks interesting (and I take the obvious caveats that it is still a
work in progress).

pihl

--
Phil Richards, <ne...@derived-software.ltd.uk>

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 10:36:53 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:46:35 +0100,

Roland Bock wrote:
>
> Not sure how much time I can offer, but I'd like to contribute to
> testing on Linux. At my company, we have some hundred modules (mostly
> libraries and plugins) with a nice amount of dependencies. Our current
> build system is based on CMake.

Then you should feel right at home :-)

> I'd be interested in seeing how the two systems compare, and (maybe)
> offering one or two suggestions, too...

I'll be putting out a call for testers as soon as we have something
ready. Your suggestions will be welcome.

> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing bug
> tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without compromising the
> dramatics for BoostCon :-)
>
> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?

A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
current stagnation of the Trac development effort.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 10:38:13 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:12:40 +0000 (UTC),

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>
> David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
>
> > To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> > called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> > installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> > libraries. I will be holding a session
>
> Does it mean we'll have independent versioning for each boost
> library?

Absolutely.

> If yes, i am both hands up for it. I was advocating this last time
> boost development procedures were updated.

Yeah, well it takes some of us a little longer to catch on… :-)

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

Steven Watanabe

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 10:46:03 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
AMDG

David Abrahams wrote:
>> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing bug
>> tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without compromising the
>> dramatics for BoostCon :-)
>>
>> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
>>
>
> A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
> all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
> bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
> current stagnation of the Trac development effort.
>

I currently monitor all incoming tickets for all libraries.
I won't appreciate having 50 places to look instead of 1.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Mateusz Loskot

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:03:31 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:46:35 +0100, Roland Bock wrote:
>> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the
>> overflowing bug tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer
>> without compromising the dramatics for BoostCon :-)
>>
>> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
>
> A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
> all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
> bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
> current stagnation of the Trac development effort.

David,

Could you give a few more details on how it would be organized
at boost.org?

Does it mean each library will organize hosting, domain, etc.
on its own.
Or, all libraries will still be hosted under at boost.org and
accessible through subdomain, test.boost.org, asio.boost.org, etc.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Roland Bock

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:10:22 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:46:35 +0100,
> Roland Bock wrote:
>> Not sure how much time I can offer, but I'd like to contribute to
>> testing on Linux. At my company, we have some hundred modules (mostly
>> libraries and plugins) with a nice amount of dependencies. Our current
>> build system is based on CMake.
>
> Then you should feel right at home :-)
>
>> I'd be interested in seeing how the two systems compare, and (maybe)
>> offering one or two suggestions, too...
>
> I'll be putting out a call for testers as soon as we have something
> ready. Your suggestions will be welcome.
>
>> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing bug
>> tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without compromising the
>> dramatics for BoostCon :-)
>>
>> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
>
> A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
> all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
> bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
> current stagnation of the Trac development effort.
>

Hmm. At this point, what sounded cool earlier, now becomes a bit
frightening. Where do you intend the decentralization to stop?

If we are going to follow that path, the next logical step would be that
each project could have its own mailing list (which some of them have
anyway).

I must admit, I wouldn't be much of a fan of that. I am on far too many
mailing lists already. And the central mailing list is nice because so
many stimulating ideas are passing through. Also, sometimes I wonder: is
there a boost library that could help me with problem XY? I send a
question to the central list and usually get an answer, soon. Without a
central list, where would I send such a question?

Will anything remain centralized? For instance review management?

Mateusz Loskot

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:29:32 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org

As an example, at OSGeo Foundation (http://osgeo.org), there number of
project and quite a number of mailing lists (http://lists.osgeo.org).
There is also one general list called OSGeo Discuss and people
post there question "What lib/tool can solve problem X?".
I'd say, it works and having project-specific lists works well
as they are kept focused on particular problem.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:53:46 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:46:03 -0700,

Steven Watanabe wrote:
>
> AMDG
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
> >> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the overflowing bug
> >> tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer without compromising the
> >> dramatics for BoostCon :-)
> >>
> >> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
> >>
> >
> > A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
> > all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
> > bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
> > current stagnation of the Trac development effort.
> >
>
> I currently monitor all incoming tickets for all libraries.
> I won't appreciate having 50 places to look instead of 1.

Understood. Not everyone will be as interested as you are in all of
Boost, though.

But if there's a need for something like this, we can make it a
requirement for Boost libraries that they have a publicly-subscribable
mailing list hooked up to their issue tracker, and we can even make it
a service of Boost to aggregate those lists into one boost-issues list
to which you can subscribe.

Or we could decide that Boost policy keeps all project's trackers in
one place. Options are wide open.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:55:26 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:03:31 +0000,

Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:46:35 +0100, Roland Bock wrote:
> >> A question from a user and occasional contributor to the
> >> overflowing bug tracker, hoping that you can provide an answer
> >> without compromising the dramatics for BoostCon :-)
> >>
> >> How could decentralization influence the overflowing bug tracker?
> >
> > A very good question. The most obvious thing is that projects could
> > all choose their own issue tracking systems, so nobody needs to be
> > bogged down by the slowness of a single Trac instance or tied to the
> > current stagnation of the Trac development effort.
>
> David,
>
> Could you give a few more details on how it would be organized
> at boost.org?

Exactly how Boost would be mapped onto ryppl is an open question,
though I have some specific ideas.

> Does it mean each library will organize hosting, domain, etc.
> on its own.
> Or, all libraries will still be hosted under at boost.org and
> accessible through subdomain, test.boost.org, asio.boost.org, etc.

I think that's up to us. Ryppl will allow either system, or something
else.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

David Abrahams

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 11:57:55 AM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
At Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:10:22 +0100,

Roland Bock wrote:
>
> Hmm. At this point, what sounded cool earlier, now becomes a bit
> frightening. Where do you intend the decentralization to stop?

Wherever we decide.

> If we are going to follow that path, the next logical step would be that
> each project could have its own mailing list (which some of them have
> anyway).

That's a possibility. Or not. Or we could go with the status quo
(some libraries have their own lists).

> I must admit, I wouldn't be much of a fan of that. I am on far too many
> mailing lists already. And the central mailing list is nice because so
> many stimulating ideas are passing through. Also, sometimes I wonder: is
> there a boost library that could help me with problem XY? I send a
> question to the central list and usually get an answer, soon. Without a
> central list, where would I send such a question?
>
> Will anything remain centralized? For instance review management?

As far as I can tell, Boost would at *least* have to continue to act
as a certifying authority for libraries, so reviews would have to be
handled here.

--
Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________

Roland Bock

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 12:14:45 PM3/18/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]

> Roland Bock wrote:
>> Will anything remain centralized? For instance review management?
>
> As far as I can tell, Boost would at *least* have to continue to act
> as a certifying authority for libraries, so reviews would have to be
> handled here.
>

OK, cool :-)

Looking forward to upcoming discussions...

Daniel James

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 5:42:33 AM3/21/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
On 16 March 2010 16:04, David Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com> wrote:
>
> To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries.  I will be holding a session

This sounds looks to me a lot like nix (see http://nixos.org/nix/ and
http://nixos.org/hydra/).

Daniel

Rob Riggs

unread,
Mar 26, 2010, 9:56:26 AM3/26/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
On 03/16/2010 10:04 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries.

How will Ryppl interact with native package management systems?

Sergey Nikulov

unread,
Mar 30, 2010, 5:51:24 AM3/30/10
to bo...@lists.boost.org
2010/3/17 David Abrahams <da...@boostpro.com>

>
> Hi All,
>
> I know I'm not the first person to notice that, as Boost has grown, it
> has become harder and harder to manage, Subversion is getting slow,
> our issue tracker is full to overflowing, and the release process is a
> full-time job. For me, this situation has taken a lot of the fun out
> of participating. It's time to make Boost development fun again.
>
> To that end, Troy Straszheim and I have started building a system
> called Ryppl to decentralize development, testing, release, and
> installation of interdependent projects, like—but not limited to—Boost
> libraries. I will be holding a session
>
>

Dave,

Why Ryppl limited by git (and not by mercurial for instance)?
Why it's not SCM agnostic?


--
Best Regards,
Sergey Nikulov

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages