Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 18:37:10

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel James" <dnljms_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries

> On 23 March 2010 07:36, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
> I can't see why anyone would volunteer for these extra requirements.

Why not to have a stability/quality label. IMO all the core libraries should belong to this level.

> There's also an issue because several libraries have stable and
> unstable parts. For this to work, we'd have to split them up somehow.

> I'm not sure how practical that would be.

I'm no sure neither. IMO the main concern is "using libraries that belong only to this level".


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at