Subject: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 03:36:00
I would like to come back to the 3 level proposition but from a different point of view (stability and quality)
1st level: stable
Libraries belonging to this level must be very stable, any modification on the public interface must be reviewed.
The goal been that changes in these libraries don't break user code, even if they will need to recompile.
Libraries can pretent to be in this level if the library use only libraries at this level, has not introduced breaking changes for a given amount of time and of course if the author wants to be constrained to have a review for changes on the public interface and to correct quicky the possible tickets.
2nd level: quite stable
Libraries at this level, even if stable, introduce breaking changes from time to time.
Libraries can go to this level if the library use only libraries at this level or the 1st level, after a deep review of the of the interfaces, the documentation, the implementation and the test coverage and have a reduced number of tickets since a to be defined period.
3rd level: unstable
It is assumed that young libraries will have a lot of breaking changes at the public interface level.
Libraries can go to this level after a review of the interfaces and the documentation.
Comments are welcome,
Vicente Juan Botet Escribá
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk