Re: [boost] [c++11]

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-14 08:53:13

On 14/06/2013 11:53, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Friday 14 June 2013 11:40:35 Phil Richards wrote:
>> Would it be possible to maintain a "boost1-mainline" (old c++, optional
>> c++11) and "boost2-mainline" (c++11, optional old c++) for each of the
>> sub-modules?
> As a library maintainer, I wouldn't like doubling the maintenance effort and
> forking the code into boost 1.x and 2.x. That, of course, implies that I want
> to support C++03 compilers in my library (which I do, at least for a few years
> from now).
But, I think my point is, with the combination of breaking boost into 
sub-modules, and using git, that, in your case, you wouldn't need to 
fork your code base. The boost2 release would incorporate your (single) 
mainline as a sub-module, as would the the boost1 release.

It's only if you wanted to support both separately that it would double 
your maintenance effort, and that's assuming that you were trying to 
implement the same functionality in both. And with git's cherry-picking 
merges, any common code would be a lot easier to share between branches. 
It is more likely a maintainer would draw a line under boost1 (except 
bug-fixes), and do all new development on boost2. The testing system 
would still test boost1 on appropriate platforms, and would catch any 
incompatibilities that might get introduced.
> IMHO, it would be much better to just state clearly the level of compatibility
> for each library in the docs and the library list [1], so that this
> information is immediately apperent to users. Library authors may choose to
> drop support for older compilers as they see fit, in newer Boost release. I
> think, this will make a more natural transition to C++11.
The problem with this approach is that, as an end-user, you might find 
that Boost 1.78 supports library X for C++03 (and contains features you 
want), but the last version of Boost that supported library Y is 1.61. 
Yes, you can roll your own set of modules, but then you are at the risk 
of other modules being incompatible between versions.

As I said, it was just a thought,
Phil
-- 
Phil Richards, <news_at_[hidden]>