Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)

Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-08 05:16:29

Rob Stewart wrote:

>>The Jeff Garland case study tells us that the past problem is already
>>solved
>>using Boost from the present or the past. You don't need to solve that
>>problem again.
> 
> Who was suggesting that?

The author of the document about the future of Boost currently being 
discussed. 

>From the document:

> ... illustrates why Boost continues to support older compilers and 
> standard libraries

And it then illustrates that 'older' means 1996 era compilers.

If you think it should mean something different, I recommend you edit the 
document, or qualify what 'older' means.

Robert Ramey also emailed to make that point in much stronger terms (and on 
very dubious claims).

Robert, if you want to participate in the discussion I recommend you resolve 
you problem with posting to this mailing list.

Thanks,

Steve.