From: Michael Marcin (mike_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-02 18:31:29
> John Maddock wrote:
>> I'd be interested in hearing whether people think a similar approach -
>> for some of our projects anyway - would be beneficial for Boost too.
> I would be interested in seeing support for some of our infrastructure.
> For whatever reasons, boost 1.34 has taken significantly longer to
> release than previous versions, and I see no reason to assume that 1.35
> will go any more smoothly - lots of new libraries accepted while
> testing has focussed on release branch rather than head, the plan to
> start testing release as well as debug builds, and talk of moving to an
> SVN repository instead of CVS.
> I could imagine several small tools to give more consistent automated
> results (e.g. something to diagnose build environment rather than rely
> on user naming conventions), perhaps enhanced report pages so we can
> see warnings, or easily group by platform rather than vendor, or ...
> (although Aleksey is already doing some work on report pages)
> Are there more automated tools we want to run like the
> license/copyright checker?
> And again, these or the sort of changes that could have an immediate
> impact, even during the SoC project itself - which could be very
> positive feedback for the student(s) involved.
Speaking of tools...
I like Boost.Build a lot but a major stumbling block for integrating it
into our company is that our programmers are mostly familiar with IDE
environments like CodeWarrior, Visual Studio, XCode, etc. A program
that could transform a bbv2 project into IDE projects would make the
barrier to adoption much smaller. Especially if that tool was
extensible so new modules could be added to support different IDEs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk