Subject: Re: [boost] boost modularisation status?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-02 10:41:09
on Sun Jan 01 2012, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> So as things stand now, cmake build/test of boost is not part part of
> boost itself. It's not a required tool. So I can't see why a review
> would be necessary.
It might be necessary if Boost were going to adopt it as the official
system. I certainly won't want to maintain it forever if Boost were
_not_ going to adopt it.
> What if it fails the review - would I be prevented from using it on my
> own machine?
How could anyone prevent that?
> If things evolve and a significant number of people start to prefer it
> over the current system, we can look at the issue as to whether we
> have to choose and if so what should we choose.
I really don't want that to happen. When the system is completed I hope
we'll have an evaluation period and make a decision quickly.
> a totally separate issue - the GIT tree seems to clone the trunk -
> wouldn't it be better if it cloned the release branch?
I don't think so.
The point of the project as we currently have it is to prove that we can
port the latest in-development state of Boost to the new system without
interruption when the system is complete. If we only worked on the
release branch we would have massive disruption and breakage every time
Boost made a new release and no activity at any other time.
When the transition is finally completed, we'll preserve all Boost
branches in the Git repository. You can see the release branch in an
un-modularized Boost Git repo here:
-- 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