Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-27 08:25:49
On 27 March 2010 11:38, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 26.03.2010 10:50, Daniel James wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can't see why anyone would volunteer for these extra requirements.
>>>
>>> To gain more users. Especially in the production environment.
>>> Also, this level of stability may be required for inclusion into the C++
>>> standard.
>>
>> Your second point doesn't hold since several parts of boost have
>> already made it into the standard.
>
> And it what way does it cancel my statement? Perhaps, you mean libraries
> like Bind or Tuple? These are quite stable for ages.
They hadn't agreed to the requirements laid out in the proposal. It
requires that the maintainer to have a review for any changes to the
public interface changes and to respond to all tickets in a timely
fashion. And I don't expect the standards committee are going to
insist on those requirements.
> I can't imagine a library author who is not willing his library to be used.
I didn't say otherwise. The core libraries are already widely used.
Adding extra beaurocracy isn't going to help.
Daniel