Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 11:27:12
On 11/21/2009 10:10 AM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>> Indeed, "What about packaging issues?"
>> At this point, let me be perfectly clear: I'm not asking Boost to slow
>> down the release cycle.
> Why not? 2 releases/year doesn't sound that bad to me.
I think the fundamental issue (as far as boost.org is concerned) is not
the number of releases, but their relationship (or in fact, the lack of
relationship, as it stands) to each other. Without any kind of API or
ABI compatibility guarantees (or even promises), I have to consider two
distinct boost releases as two entirely different products.
Try to look at it that way, and you may understand the concerns I'm
Again, the context of this discussion is "core libraries". I can
definitely see the lack of appeal in any sort of compatibility guarantee
for highly experimental code. If boost.org started to use a modular
approach (even if only as a mental model), may be at least the most
widely used boost components could become "stable" in this sense.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk