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: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-09 07:22:32

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Niall Douglas wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jun 2014 at 11:16, Stephen Kelly 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.
> >> [snip]
> >> 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.
> >
> > No, I think Jeff's use case does refer to that age of compiler. To my
> > best understanding, he had a large code base based on ancient
> > compilers which he successfully got compiling with C++ 11 mode
> > switched on thanks to Boost. I understand he believes that a more
> > rapid switch of Boost to requiring all C++ 11 would be a great loss
> > to Boost and to those in his situation. I understand he therefore
> > believes such ideas should be opposed.
>
> It looks like the document about the future of Boost is making it a policy
> that no compiler support should be dropped ever and that ancients are
> supported by policy.
>

To try to reduce the chance of a reader jumping to that conclusion, I've
changed the case study introduction from:

     This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why Boost continues to
support older compilers and standard libraries.

to:

     This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why many Boost libraries
leave old compiler and standard library workarounds in place as long as
they don't impede library evolution:

Thanks,

--Beman