Re: [boost] [SPAM] Re: Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon

Subject: Re: [boost] [SPAM] Re: Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-12 17:09:20

On 1/12/18 7:38 AM, Robert Dailey via Boost wrote:

> I want to revive this old thread, because I think it's extremely
> important. I've been using CMake since around 2007 and I'm extremely
> familiar with it. If the Boost developers plan to support CMake or
> have an ongoing repository with CMake scripts they're working on,
> please share it with me as I'd love to pitch in.

<snip>

This should probably be on a different thread.

My intention of this meeting was to promote the idea that proposals for 
boost tools - specifically Boost support for CMake - be subjected to the 
Boost Review process.  It is my view that the review system has been the 
the fundamental reason that Boost has been more successful than others 
in producing and distributing C++ libraries.  I believe that this idea 
was accepted by consensus of those present. It's my hope that extending 
this system to cover Boost tools will.

a) promote the creation/maintenance of tools which are easier to use, 
better documented and regularly tested before being applied to boost 
infrastructure.
b) diminish contentiousness among boost members by getting agreement on 
issues before tools are implemented.
c) make it easier for interested parties to contribute fixes, enhancements.

So far, one proposal for incorporation of CMake into boost infrasture 
has been submitted and endorsed for review.  The author is Paul Fultz. 
You can find it in git hub.  It hasn't been up for formal review yet, 
but there is no reason why anyone can't review/comment on it now.  There 
is also no reason why someone cannot submit an alternate proposal - in 
fact that might be interesting.  Not that any such submissions should 
include what we require for all boost submissions: Documentation, Tests, 
Boost License and of course code.

Robert Ramey