Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2

Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Sohail Somani (sohail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 14:07:36

On 16/05/2014 1:10 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
[snip a large list of very good suggestions for going forward]
>
> Thoughts?

All of this sounds really good, your statements about "vested interests" 
aside. I'm not one of them, but if I were, maybe I'd find it a little 
offensive. I'm sure everyone here wants to do a good job.

Not because of politics or anything, but I would say that you do this 
independently of the usual Boost repo. Let there be a "C++03 Boost" and 
a "C++-latest-but-1 Boost". Share as little as possible.

I say a big fat yes to CMake. I love the elegance of bjam but CMake + 
Ninja is ridiculous. CMake is elegant in its own way. And let's not give 
compiler vendors a pass by using their compiler as a baseline. Have a 
policy that says that we drop support for compilers that don't support 
(say) the penultimate standard. If the C++ standard is becoming more 
iterative, then the compilers need to be as well. So when C++17 is out, 
the library would support only C++14 with compiler workarounds only for 
C++14 and up.

I would not bring over any existing libraries unless the authors wanted 
to do so themselves and if they are also going to sunset the old C++03 
library. For this reason, I'd start with new libraries that are needed 
just for C++11 code.

A lot of talk... But it needs buy in.

Sohail