Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 18:37:10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel James" <dnljms_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
>
> On 23 March 2010 07:36, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> 1st level: stable
>> Libraries belonging to this level must be very stable, any modification on the public interface must be reviewed.
>> The goal been that changes in these libraries don't break user code, even if they will need to recompile.
>> Libraries can pretent to be in this level if the library use only libraries at this level, has not introduced breaking changes for a given amount of time and of course if the author wants to be constrained to have a review for changes on the public interface and to correct quicky the possible tickets.
>
> I can't see why anyone would volunteer for these extra requirements.
Why not to have a stability/quality label. IMO all the core libraries should belong to this level.
> There's also an issue because several libraries have stable and
> unstable parts. For this to work, we'd have to split them up somehow.
> I'm not sure how practical that would be.
I'm no sure neither. IMO the main concern is "using libraries that belong only to this level".
Best,
Vicente