Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 22:40:49

> IMO stable = stale.
>
> I would hope that all boost libraries would be constantly evolving.

I am not sure if you read my post but the two concepts are not mutually 
exclusive.

I expect you wouldn't be too happy if the next release drastically altered 
the behaviour of shared_ptr, yes?
I would like to have some warning and perhaps a transition period.  I think 
the "stable" libraries are well established and rarely change anyway - and 
that's the user's expectation, too.  Hence if they were to change 
drastically, it would take people by surprise.  I was trying to suggest that 
when changing them, it should be done with more care than for some of the 
newer libs, which would be allowed more flexibility.

The second part of what I'm saying is, IMHO, applicable to any large 
corporate environment.  You really want to use a newly accepted/released 
library X but you can't, because your firm is stuck on boost version 
neanderthal.  If new libraries could be released in incremental releases 
that don't necessarily alter the core components of boost, it would be much 
easier to introduce them to such environments.  Each new version of boost 
means rebuild the world and that's not feasible, unless it's also part of 
some major internal release.  Furthermore, now you've introduced several new 
variables into the new build and limiting the number of moving parts is IMHO 
a good idea.  These internal rebuilds don't happen too often, and this in 
turn is giving new boost libraries less exposure than they could have.

There were a few other reasons I wrote about in the link provided but the 
two above are the major ones.

Tom