Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-22 15:13:38
On 22 March 2010 12:43, Schrom, Brian T <brian.schrom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> In a nutshell, I believe that the Boost Vision statement needs to be
> revisited and determine what Boost is. Â To me, it seems to have wandered
> a bit away from it's originally established goals. Â If I could have my
> cake and eat it too, I would like to see Boost divided into three
> subprojects: Â 1) Â Research and development of C++ Standards and
> libraries, 2) Â Repository for complementary (and integrated) but non
> standards bound libraries, and 3) sandbox projects. Â Within 1 and 2,
> there should be unstable, testing, and stable libraries. Â I believe this
> would set user's expectations appropriately.
I really like that split.
I always liked the idea of a "core", but trying to define what that
would be was quite hard. With "standards-track" libraries, we can
require, in essence, that it comes along with a committee paper
describing it in addition to the normal Boost requirements. I'd also
be glad to have the category 2, since it echoes my feelings about some
of the recent libraries that I don't expect to ever use, though were
plausibly useful to some or many.
I'd suggest shipping even the category 3 libraries in releases, though
only in a clearly separate area. "Determine interest" would get it
into category 3, and people could start using -- and hopefully even
reviewing -- the libraries while they're there. A fairly typical
Boost review could then examine the the usability to move it into
category 2, allowing the possibly of multiple libraries in the same
domain. A final review of design and implementation could then move
certain libraries into category 1.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk