From: Russell Hind (rh_gmane_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 06:35:39
> Playing devil's advocate here!
> What is the benefit of doing this in the main Boost CVS, as opposed to
> maintaining another bcbboost_1_32?
> I doubt we are going to see another patched release of Boost 1.32 at
> this point, the regression testing cost alone is likely prohibitive.
> By maintaining a separate BCBboost aimed purely at BCB customers, and
> QAing against BCB6 and 2006 only, it is easier to perform necessary
> testing and get it back into the hands of Borland customers.
> You could also integrate Spirit 1.6 as the default version of the
> library at that point too.
I doubt it too, and wouldn't mind where it came from.
It could be done again as a separate project (in fact, we import each
boost release in to our own svn repository at work and modify it and
version internally ourselves).
But I'd rather see it done as a complete source tree, rather than a
patch as bcbboost is. i.e. if we are to do this, then import the
current boost-1.32.0 in to a new svn repo at sourceforge and then modify
But if there aren't many people requiring this, then perhaps it is
overkill. If I get the chance to look at getting 1.32.0 working with
BDS 2006 internally then that is a start. Once that is done, I can
think about how to make it more public.
Integrating spirit as the default would be a good move too (again, that
is what our svn repo of boost contains).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk