Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 09:13:17
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Niall Douglas
> Robert, I think you are under a misapprehension about what I mean by
> "fork". By a fork, I mean forking just a very small part of existing
> Boost, namely whatever minimal support is necessary to start from
> scratch with a new *empty* set of C++ 14 only Boost libraries.
> I don't propose to port *any* of the legacy Boost libraries
> whatsoever, they stay where there are.
This doesn't sound like a fork at all. Why not just call it something
different? Then there would be a place for modern development without
having to disambiguate what boost v1 means vs. boost v2? This would
free up some of the tension in the community around supporting legacy
toolsets vs. diving into the new. Just my $0.02.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk