Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 11:40:10
Henrik Sundberg <storangen <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> > The library changed after its original form, and into something much better.
> > And the change was motivated by real user feedback, something which the
> > original review in some sense could not provide as much of.
> This relates to another thread. Should libraries be marked as
> No library can be stable before it has met its first real users. New
> libraries are marked as experimental in at least one Boost release.
> This ought to be OK, since the Boost release cycle is so short
> nowadays. The release must be commonly available first though.
Precisely. Are you talking about Dave and my idea of having two different
release cycles for "stable" and "new" components? Glad you brought it up - it
seems to have gotten completely ignored initially.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk