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

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.41] boost-cmake leaving svn
From: pete_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-10-15 07:15:07

 On Thu 15/10/09 07:00 , "troy d. straszheim"  wrote:
 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
 _______________________________________________
 Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
 

Links:
------
[1] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost