Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-03 12:23:02

on Mon Nov 24 2008, Tomas Puverle <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:

> 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
>> stable/experimental?
>> 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.

I'm really warming up to the idea.  I don't think it was mine in any
way, but thanks for the credit (or is there another Dave here?)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com