Subject: Re: [boost] CMake in Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-29 02:01:01
On 9/28/18 4:20 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:36 PM
>>
>> On 9/27/18 11:23 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
>>>> c) Prior to this discussions can be held on the list regarding the scope
>>>> of such an effort. The review manager will distill these discussions to
>>>> a statement of scope. This will be posted around 30 October 2018.
>>
>> Correction - I meant 1 October. That is I will post my initial proposal
>> for the scope definition around this date. The discussion of the scope
>> can be hashed out on the list.
>
>
> Ah ok, I understood your mail in such a way that you wanted to have the scope
> discussion finished by then (31.10) and that you would then post the "result".
> Sorry for chiming in prematurely.
LOL _ I've just whacked out from giving my presentation at CPP con.
The original version is correct. That is
Around 1 October I'll start out the scope discussion with an initial
proposal for the scope. I expect this will reveal that there is a lot
of disagreement on this. I the course of the next 30 days I'll gather
opinions and by 30 October hope to develop a boost style consensus.
That is a description which everyone can live with. And call for
submissions. I hope to have the review of the submissions start around
1 February 2019.
A reminder that this process will be a little different that the normal
one for libraries. Traditionally, we've considered library submissions
one at at time for an accept/reject decision. The problem here is that
the acceptance of one stops the process. This is not a good match in
this case. So we'll be considering the submissions simultaneously and
comparatively. The general boost expectations will apply: that is,
functionality, testability, documentation, final determination in the
hands of the review manager.
FYI - I am now aware of three persons who are seriously considered
making such submissions. Given the fact that we're giving lots of time
for persons to take their shot and that everyone is expert on build
systems, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more.
Sorry for the mixup.
Robert Ramey
>
> Best
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>