Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 06:57:40

(This was a bit delayed as I accidentally sent this off list first time)

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 11:51 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 10:57 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 10:22 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> What do you think about increasing the compiler requirement much more,
> >> as I wrote in another mail?
> > I'd say no, unless you've got a very good reason. Compiler support
> > should be an individual library maintainers decision.
> Thanks for bringing that up. I was hoping someone would :). I've been
> reading the boost mailing list for a while and I've seen similar
> sentiments that each maintainer can make somewhat autonomous decisions
> on things like this.

Usually by me I imagine.

> That obviously does not help with forward momentum
> in efforts like this, and I expect the boost community has a solution to
> that problem.

Do you have any evidence for that? No one opposed your original change.
I didn't because the benefit outweighed the potential loss (which is
very small, possibly none at all). But "increasing the compiler
requirement much more" sounds excessive.

> Is the solution the steering committee? I ask because I'm not familiar
> enough with the boost community to know already.

It's not really very clear what the situation is, at least to me. But
I'd say that such things really should be discussed on this list first
as it's a development matter.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at