Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-27 10:34:05
On 27 March 2010 13:43, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?
You gave two reasons. I'm not convinced that either of them are true.
I really don't see how this proposal will make any difference to the
quality of boost. What I think might be useful would be a simple
guideline on how to make interface changes and deprecate old
interfaces. But I'll shut up now as this is going nowhere, maybe
you'll prove me wrong.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk