Re: [boost] Deprecation of compilers and libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Deprecation of compilers and libraries
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-17 19:25:25

On 17 March 2011 21:04, Jeroen Habraken <vexocide_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Compilers:
> 1. What minimum of compilers should a library support for it to be
> considered for review?
> 2. What is necessary for a compiler previously supported to be removed
> from this list?

See: http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Portability

No compilers are explicitly listed, but Gcc and Visual C++ are clearly
the most important, since they're the dominant compilers on unix and
windows systems. People seem to be taking up Clang quite rapidly as
well.

> Libraries:
> 3. Should library X be marked as preferred over library Y, since
> multiple solutions to a similar problem are becoming more common and
> the right choice might not be obvious to a user?

IMO, no, unless the maintainer wishes to do so.

> 4. Can an existing library be marked "deprecated"?

Yes, it's happened before:

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_1/libs/compose/

> 5. Once deprecated will a library be removed from boost after X releases?
> 6. Should a backwards compatible solution exist for a library to be removed?

There's no policy on that. I'm not sure there should be since it can
vary from library to library. Classic spirit is pretty much deprecated
but they keep it around (and I'm glad they do). While filesystem v2 is
going to be removed, which seems sensible because the upgrade path is
fairly easy.

Daniel