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

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 02:51:41

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries

> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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 missed the thread.
 
> 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...

Please, note that this is a vouluntering level. each library author decides on which level its library could be. 

Best,
Vicente