Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 03:19:57
Rene Eng <gemini67 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> - You have to maintain 3 sets of the Boost library that are in itself
I might have missed it, bu t I thought this discussion was not about 3 version
of the library. This is definitely, not something I'd support.
> - What is with bug fixes in the stable version? Wouldn't it take more time
> until a bug fix could finally be provided in the stable version?
That's question is unclear to me
> - What is if a library should be moved to the stable version, but requires
> another (version of a) library which is not yet ready for the stable
> version, or would brake the requirements for stable versions?
That's easy: you can't depend on libraries in development to qualify for "ready
for production" status.
> - I suppose a new library would be available in the stable version only 1 or
> 2 years after it was released the first time? So if somebody wants to use
> e.g. the forthcoming Boost Log library, he has to wait a long time.
Why? It depends on you really. If you are willing to accept possible
non-backward compatible changes or willing to stick to this particular version
or willing to maintain local copy yourself - you can use any library, even just
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk