From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 00:28:37
> One of boosts roles is to do research and development, the other is to establish
> existing practise. The R& D role inevitably results in the need to break an
> existing interface in the interest of providing a better one, however that is
> inevitably not going to go down well with existing users. Establishing existing
> practise demands a high level of stability. Perhaps there needs to be a clear
> policy on the procedure to follow to go about modifying the interface ...
There has been talk about splitting boost into more manageable chunks
for a long time and that seems to an ideal split line:
stable: interface will never change; only bug fixes in future
experimental: interface may change in a subsequent release
Requirements for stable could be: no changes in at least 6 months and
author(s) having no intention to make changes.
If an author wants to make backwards-incompatible changes to a stable
library they make it a new library, with a new name (even it just
tacking "2" on to the end of the existing name). This should of course
happen very rarely.
Having a stable core will give developers more confidence in using boost
for important projects; I think it is essential.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk