Subject: Re: [boost] boost modularisation status?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-01 19:44:42
on Sun Jan 01 2012, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le 01/01/12 20:51, Eric Niebler a Ã©crit :
>> On 12/31/2011 5:37 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Sat Dec 31 2011, Dave Abrahams<dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
>>>> on Sat Dec 31 2011, "Robert Ramey"<ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>>>> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>>>>> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see what I
>>>>> expect to see according to
>> This page also needs to be updated or deleted.
>>>>> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at
>>>>> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>>>>> What is the current status of this?
>>>> Glad you asked!
>>>> That wiki page is (fortunately) out of date.
>>> I've updated the Wiki page now. Please let me know what you think.
>> I for one am glad to see this effort is ongoing. I'd like to see this
>> project get more visibility as I see it as important for the long-term
>> health of Boost. Can we put something on boost.org encouraging people to
>> try out the (pre-alpha) modularlized boost distro, where to file bugs
>> and how to get involved, etc?
> this should be considered as a new tool (and in addition it needs
> CMAKE build). While I consider the modularization useful, I find that
> adding a new build system to Boost will need some official maintainers
> of the CMake files for each one of the Boost libraries until the
> library authors have taken the time to be familiar with the new build
> system. Of course, this will imply that we need regular testers for
> both build systems which will be time consuming
I understand, but I disagree. There's no reason to make the (already
high) hurdles to such a transition stratospherically high. If the Boost
community decides to use any given new piece of infrastructure, there's
no reason it has to be a protracted process; it can just happen.
> Resuming, I think that we need a formal review for CMake build once it
> is able to build the whole Boost libraries.
Again I disagree. The review process is for libraries, and Boost has
never formally reviewed tools like this. I am more than happy to have a
discussion about it, and I believe that discussion should inform our
decision, but I believe it is possible for the steering committee to
make a decision as a matter of policy.
> Is CMake build ready for review? If no, what is missing, not working
> yet, ...?
I think the Wiki page makes it pretty darned clear what the status is.
Did you read the whole thing (particularly
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk