Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-22 14:18:48
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > I'm just not sure that it will be easy to agree on a set of core
> > libraries.
> Probably not, but I'm not sure that such difficulties are a reason not
> even to start. Spinning off stable components into their own
> (build-,package-,release-)procedure is an incremental process, and
> doesn't require everybody to agree upfront what components should go
> through this in the long run.
The only point I definitively don't like about this is the own release procedure for the stable components (test, build and package seem OK). Even if there should be a "core" package and a "complete" package, both should still be strictly released together. And I'm also strictly against dreaming that the "core" package will offer significantly more guarantees than the current boost releases. And keep in mind that relaxing the guarantees for the "complete" package might make it easier to add a library like numeric_bindings to it, which is difficult to test on all potential target systems. Currently, libraries like Boost.MPI or Boost.Phyton have the full responsibility to ensure that they can be tested with reasonable effort on all potential target systems. So dreaming about relaxing the guarantees for the "complete" package is probably not a good idea either.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk