Subject: Re: [boost] Idea: Boost Software Foundation?
From: Matt Chambers (matthew.chambers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-25 10:54:24
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> 1. As a project, Boost and Apache try to (and I'd like to say both do)
> deliver high quality open source components under a liberal and
> commercially friendly license. Boost has many sub-projects that are
> worth naming like Boost.Build, (Boost.?)Quickbook, BCP, and Boost.Jam
> (although a little stagnant IIRC). Maybe treating other libraries as
> sub-projects that have a publicly-accessible and easily "forkable"
> repository would be a good thing. Git and Github come to mind.
> 2. As a software distribution, Apache has decentralized the release
> management of the libraries and software projects under its umbrella.
> This means sub-projects can depend on specific version releases of
> other sub-projects instead of making sure that there's only one
> release that bundles everything together.
If you want to compare with Apache, the Boost libraries are akin to the
Apache Portable Runtime, not the Apache project as a whole (which is far
more application-oriented than library-oriented). So it's not clear to
me why you would want to split up libraries like Apache splits up
applications. Sure, the Boost scope is bigger than APR, but not terribly
so. I think if the libraries were split up as separate releases, that
would shift the burden of synchronizing them to the library users, which
seems like a very bad idea to me. It would make it easier in some cases
to adopt a single library from Boost while leaving the others, but then
trying to add more libraries begins the synchronization issue (e.g. some
user has been using a recent version of library A; they want to start
using library B, but library B's current release depends on an older
version of library A, while the user depends on the recent version of A).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk