From: Pedro Lamarão (pedro.lamarao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-11 10:19:28
David Abrahams escreveu:
>> If the assumtion here were grounded we could just as well accept
>> libraries directly because we trust the good jugdment of the author;
>> but we don't, and there lies our "credibility".
> Well, there's a "Zen of Boost" that I think you fail to appreciate
> here. We maintain the tension between autonomy and ownership on the
> one hand, and oversight and review on the other. It's one of the key
> things that's made Boost successful, and I wouldn't want to change it.
I suppose this conflict of interest would not be as important if the
Boost library release process would separate (more frequently) bugfix
releases from new features releases.
Today, anyone worried about API stability is forced to upgrade to
API-breaking versions for bugfix purposes.
If there were more bugfix releases, like there was a 1.33.1, and in
_those_ releases API did not break, then the community could just say:
you want stability? Keep with the older. You want new features? Be
prepared to adjust your code.
This way, instead of constraining how authors can evolve their libraries
in HEAD, a new responsibility of paying some attention to older branches
and backporting fixes to them is added.
Of course, it's easy to suggest other people should have _more_ work to
make _our_ lives easier...
-- Pedro Lamarão Desenvolvimento Intersix Technologies S.A. SP: (55 11 3803-9300) RJ: (55 21 3852-3240) www.intersix.com.br Your Security is our Business
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk