Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 13:00:22
On 5/13/2015 12:37 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 13/05/15 12:19 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> Personally speaking, I think the new library authors are
>> overwhelmingly voting for a complete break with Boost 1.x. It makes
>> no sense to bundle these new libraries into a 1.x monolithic distro
>> when they have no dependencies on Boost.
>>
>> I believe now is the time we start establishing the infrastructure to
>> shape the new Boost 2.0 distro instead of wasting resources on trying
>> to refactor the 1.x distro. APIBind is there for maintainers wanting
>> to be part of both distros. Let's make a clean break.
>
> Allow me to bring up a point I have been trying to make for quite a
> while: Why does Boost need a single "distro" ?
> Assuming a full breakup of boost libraries with well documented (and
> encoded) dependencies among them, I think a much more viable solution
> for everyone would be to let each boost library become its own project
> with its own release schedule etc.
>
> So Boost would be merely an umbrella organization, and what you call a
> distro may be the repository of Boost libraries.
>
> Wouldn't that be something worthwhile to think about and discuss ?
It is definitely worth discussing. The key is "with well documented (and
encoded) dependencies among them".
How do we do this ? '
It is silly to suppose that new "Boost" libraries will be developed that
do not depend on other already existing Boost libraries. If library X
depends on library Y we currently know that library X will work with
library Y for Boost distro N because we have tested them before we
release distro N. If library X goes off with its own release schedule
how do we determine with which versions of Y it will work when it is
being released ?
This is the crux of the matter if we have individual Boost libraries
being released on their own.