Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 21:27:49

I suggested another division a year (was it?) ago, where I tried to enumerate all libraries while putting them in "core", "math" and "other" categories, as a side effect of trying to prove (or show?) that Boost is mostly about cross-domain programming *and* one specific sector, math (or "scientific programming"), and how strange that particular outshoot seemed to me, and that it could scare some developers away.

I still believe in this idea of creating a core layer, where tools that are useful in any (sub) discipline should be put. I.e., not the "stable"/"unstable" division, and especially - as someone pointed out - since that division might cause a bit of emotions on this list...

/David

On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> On 03/26/2010 12:06 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> To gain more users. Especially in the production environment.
> Also, this level of stability may be required for inclusion into the C++ standard.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost