Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-07 14:43:25
On 6 Dec 2013 at 16:56, Nevin Liber wrote:
> > i.e., to be clear, I would suggest an aggressive pruning and
> > deprecation policy as a method of giving people a business case to
> > take to their managements which they would process as an End Of Life
> > support issue. Whether in practice a library *actually* gets deleted
> > from the approved list of Boost libraries is entirely another matter,
> > but the threat needs to be credible.
> -1. We should never deliberately have an adversarial relationship with
> companies that use Boost. It would not end well, because they are unlikely
> to respond to threats in the way you would like them to.
Who said anything about being adversarial or threatening anyone?
Software becomes obsolete unless upgraded. Companies understand this,
you just need to tell them using the language management uses for
funding COTS upgrade cycles. You publish a long term roadmap with
upgrade and migration options for deprecated items, and you stick to
One thing is definitely for sure: you can't keep growing a set of
general purpose C++ libraries indefinitely.
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/