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

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 03:50:36

On 26 March 2010 01:22, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> 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.

Your second point doesn't hold since several parts of boost have
already made it into the standard.

And I don't think it will result in more users. But even it does, it
isn't enough of a motivation. Since a library can only be as stable as
its dependencies, then the libraries that everyone depends on will
need to sign up for this.  And I don't think their maintainers are
looking for more users (especially Boost.Preprocessor).

Daniel