Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-27 09:43:28
On 03/27/2010 03:25 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 27 March 2010 11:38, Andrey Semashev<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 26.03.2010 10:50, Daniel James wrote:
>>>>> 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++
>>> Your second point doesn't hold since several parts of boost have
>>> already made it into the standard.
>> And it what way does it cancel my statement? Perhaps, you mean libraries
>> like Bind or Tuple? These are quite stable for ages.
> They hadn't agreed to the requirements laid out in the proposal. It
> requires that the maintainer to have a review for any changes to the
> public interface changes and to respond to all tickets in a timely
> fashion. And I don't expect the standards committee are going to
> insist on those requirements.
But these requirements were followed, although not formally. For
instance, I remember there was a quite exhaustive discussion of whether
to break interface of boost::function by removing the allocator from
template parameters or not. Fixing this policy explicitly will give a
good guideline to other (new) developers of libraries that pretend to be
included into the standard.
>> I can't imagine a library author who is not willing his library to be used.
> I didn't say otherwise. The core libraries are already widely used.
> Adding extra beaurocracy isn't going to help.
It's not about the libraries that are now de-facto "stable". It's about
the new libraries that would want to have that label. Your original
argument was that there will be no volunteers for reaching the "stable"
status of their libraries. I gave you the reason. Am I missing something?