From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-03 13:49:53
"Michael Fawcett" <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 5/3/07, Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Here I don't understand. Suppose Boost release X contains library A version
>> 1.4, and library B version 1.23, and library A depends on library B. The
>> developer of library B then releases a new version (1.24), and the author of
>> library A doesn't. The next Boost release (Y) comes along, and now library A
>> is no longer part of the Boost release? That strikes me as a bad plan --- the
>> contents of Boost will vary from release to release as developers update their
>> libraries at different rates.
>> As an alternative, how about this: if library A depends on version xyz of
>> library B, then library B is pinned at version xyz for Boost releases until
>> library A is updated. If library A is not updated for n consecutive Boost
>> releases, library A is dropped from Boost as unmaintained.
>> How about this, also: a library developer can only release their library if it
>> is built against the latest released version of all its dependent
>> libraries. That way if a core library is updated, all other libraries will
>> have to use the new version before they can release.
> Didn't Beman's proposal address most or all of these issues?
Probably, I haven't seen his revised proposal yet. I was just responding to
-- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk