Subject: [boost] When Boost modularization and Git migration coupling were accepted on this ML?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-19 06:12:48
I would not take the time to inspect all the post relating to this
subject. There are a lot of post related to the subject, a lot of
discussion, but what I'm locking for is a decision. So please don't
replay to this post by telling me, you have just to use this tool or
this other tool to have the answer. If you consider that this post is
bicksheding or a bad post, please, just ignore it.
I remember a post that deceded to move to Git long time ago.
I would just know if (and when) the Boost community has decided to
couple the move to Git and the Boost modularization. And i would like to
know also if changes to the trunk repository without requesting authors
permission were allowed on this move.
Who accepted the plan described by S. Kelly ?
Who gave him the right to update the whole Boost repository?
Was this discussed on this ML or on a specific ML that is not an
official Boost ML?
Le 18/10/13 00:24, Stephen Kelly a écrit :
> my plan for modularizing and modernizing Boost was roughly this:
> * Phase 0 - remove dead weight by bumping compiler feature requirements
> * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a
> mostly directed graph
> * Phase 2 - Form some kind of 'boost core library' or 'boost feature
> normalization library' from the guts of existing libraries like
> type_traits, static_assert, config mpl and utilities.
> * Phase 3 - Try to port the mpl to variadic templates so that the
> dependency on Boost.PP is not needed when variadic templates are available.
Apologies if this is clear for most of you.
IMHO, this kind of decisions should be posted with an explicit title.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk