Re: [boost] [1.41] boost-cmake leaving svn

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.41] boost-cmake leaving svn
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-15 01:00:48

Eric Niebler wrote:
> 
> Not only is it disruptive, but it's against policy to commit directly
> to release.

I know that, I was just trying to spin it.

> My opinion: the cmake build system should be like other parts of 
> boost: polished, documented, tested, reviewed, accepted, merged to 
> trunk and then to release, and actively maintained.

Please forgive me for saying this is a bit far-fetched.  If I propose a 
library for inclusion and it gets rejected, fine, I still have a 
library.  If I propose a build system (arguably more work than a typical 
library) and it gets rejected, I've got nothing.  A new library doesn't 
typically require everybody to change the way they do business 
throughout the entire release cycle, from development to testing, and 
therefore doesn't encounter the inertia of the community.   For that 
matter, I'm having trouble imagining how one would merge a build system 
from trunk to release.  This is the same problem that provoked this 
discussion.

> Distributing an experimental build system in an official boost 
> release was probably a mistake.

Well we thought we would get some users, and we got lots of them on the 
end-users' side, but it didn't catch on with boost developers as I'd 
hoped.  C'est la vie.

I think the better way is:

* A few notes in Getting Started with pointers to the cmake stuff
* One root CMakeLists.txt that just prints a message on where to get 
boost-cmake
* A link to some boost-cmake tarball area alongside the standard boost 
tarballs.

That's the new proposal.

> In that light, I must reluctantly agree that removing cmake from 
> trunk and release is probably the right thing. Beman?

I doubt that it is necessary to agree at this point.  That stuff either 
comes out of release or goes out broken.

> My worry is that as a side project, the cmake build system will get 
> less use and less attention. It's been 2 years since the cmake effort
> began, and where are we?

I don't see it that way.  We have 115 people on the boost-cmake list, 
and a bunch of them were really helpful (thanks guys) in tuning up the 
build for 1.40.0, and we'll do it again in a few weeks for 1.41.0. 
Participation has been signficantly wider than when it was just Doug and 
I.   There are docs, happy users, all that stuff.

> I *really* want our users to have a standard option for building 
> boost that integrates well with their chosen build environment.

They've got that.  It's done.

-t