<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tom Kent <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@teeks99.com" target="_blank">lists@teeks99.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:boost@lists.boost.org" target="_blank">boost@lists.boost.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">(B) The community decides what version number we should be using and the<br> appropriate PRs are filed and applied and tested for all the repos<br> involved. Which means:<br> <br> 1. The community has until 12:00 CDT US March 18 to decide on what the vc<br> version number and tag should be.<br> <br> 2. The community must post PRs for the places where we reference VS2017<br> version numbers to the new number. Those are at least:<br> <br> <<a href="https://github.com/boostorg/config" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/boostorg/c<wbr>onfig</a>><br> <<a href="https://github.com/boostorg/build" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/boostorg/b<wbr>uild</a>><br> <<a href="https://github.com/boostorg/boost" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/boostorg/b<wbr>oost</a>><br> <<a href="https://github.com/boostorg/website" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/boostorg/w<wbr>ebsite</a>><br> <br> People have until 17:00 CDT Monday March 20 to submit those PRs.<br> <br> 3. The community can test the resulting master snapshot when available at<br> the latest 24:00 Monday March 20.<br> <br> 4. If all goes well we can have a beta release on Wednesday March 22 (ie<br> one week late).</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm not sure how we'll coalesce around a consensus, but I figure we should lay out the options in one place. Even if this doesn't make it into the beta, we should be clear on this going forward.</div><div><br></div><div>Option 1 - 14.10 Use microsoft toolset version based on cl.exe version -5. This is the official version of the c++ toolset that microsoft has been pushing (somewhere). The new $(VCToolsVersion) macro is "14.10.25017", this macro is not available in previous versions of visual studio.</div><div><br></div><div>build bootstrap would use bootstrap.bat vc1410</div><div>build of source would use b2 toolset=msvc-14.10</div><div>build would generat libraries of the format libboost_NAME_vc1410-OPTIONS-<wbr>1_64.lib</div><div>config would auto-link libraries of the same format</div><div><br></div><div>Option 2 - 14.1 Use the abbreviated toolset version that microsoft uses for their toolset version. The $(PlatformToolsetVersion) macro is "141". In VS2015 this was "140".</div><div><br></div><div><div>build bootstrap would use bootstrap.bat vc141</div><div>build of source would use b2 toolset=msvc-14.1</div><div>build would generat libraries of the format libboost_NAME_vc141-OPTIONS-1_<wbr>64.lib</div><div>config would auto-link libraries of the same format</div></div><div><br></div><div>Option 3 - 15.0 Use the visual studio version. The $(VisualStudioVersion) macro is "15.0". In VS2015 this was "14.0". </div><div><br></div><div><div><div>build bootstrap would use bootstrap.bat vc15</div><div>build of source would use b2 toolset=msvc-15.0</div><div>build would generat libraries of the format libboost_NAME_vc150-OPTIONS-1_<wbr>64.lib</div><div>config would auto-link libraries of the same format</div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>A alternative that could be made to any of the options 1-3 option would be to bring the b2 toolset in line with whatever we chose for the name, replacing the "msvc-" with "vc". For example option 1-a would be:<br><br><div>build bootstrap would use bootstrap.bat vc1410</div><div>build of source would use b2 toolset=vc1410</div><div>build would generat libraries of the format libboost_NAME_vc1410-OPTIONS-<wbr>1_64.lib</div><div>config would auto-link libraries of the same format</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I *think* that is all the reasonable options. Let the consensus form!</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Tom</div></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am in favor of option 2. </div><div><br></div><div>Option 1 while most "correct" is waaaaay too far in the weeds for users. It doesn't play well with any built in "macros". </div><div><br></div><div>It kills me that Option 3 isn't worthy, but this is completely microsoft's fault. Splitting the C++ toolset from the visual studio version was a terrible decision. There were better ways to indicate backwards compatibility with 14.0. </div><div><br></div><div>The alternative for b2 toolset naming would be more consistent, but would just cause too many problems. We probably should have made this match back on <a href="http://VS.NET">VS.NET</a>, but at that point we didn't know where microsoft was going with these versions. I'd say we're stuck with what we have. </div><div><br></div><div>Tom</div></div><br></div></div>