Re: [boost] GIL Review Comments

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-24 18:59:38

Malte Clasen wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>> On 1/24/07, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Which may allow use of AGG 2.4 code in Boost under the boost license.
>>> Any thoughts on that?
>>
>> But 2.4 is an old release, so it looks like it wouldn't be a good idea to
>> aim for serious AGG integration
> 
> It's not current, but far from being outdated. There seem to be several 
> people (including me) who stick with it because of licensing issues. I'm 
> quite sure that a branch starting at 2.4 could be successful from a 
> user's perspective, considering the comments on the agg mailing list. 
> However, without a motivated lead developer, this is going to be a dead 
> end, since there's currently no AGG development community that could 
> switch to the Boost branch. But if someone wants to start working on 
> this, I'd say this is the time to do so.

I agree. 2.4 is a good release. It's a good point for branching.
I had high hopes for some work on antigrain, views and rendering
and GIL. I did a quick demo on integration when GIL was reviewed.

It's possible to fork Antigrain 2.4 and even boostify it in the
process. I'm already quite familiar with it. But I'm not sure
there's enough time to do it, let alone maintain and support it.
I'm still hoping Maxim changes his mind.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net