Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 13:55:28

On 13 May 2015 at 12:37, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> On 13/05/15 12:19 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > Personally speaking, I think the new library authors are
> > overwhelmingly voting for a complete break with Boost 1.x. It makes
> > no sense to bundle these new libraries into a 1.x monolithic distro
> > when they have no dependencies on Boost.
> >
> > I believe now is the time we start establishing the infrastructure to
> > shape the new Boost 2.0 distro instead of wasting resources on trying
> > to refactor the 1.x distro. APIBind is there for maintainers wanting
> > to be part of both distros. Let's make a clean break.
> Allow me to bring up a point I have been trying to make for quite a
> while: Why does Boost need a single "distro" ?

Under my scheme, a Boost 2.0 distro is merely when one presses
"Download All" and it downloads each of the individual standalone
distros for each Boost 2.0 library.

> Assuming a full breakup of boost libraries with well documented (and
> encoded) dependencies among them, I think a much more viable solution
> for everyone would be to let each boost library become its own project
> with its own release schedule etc.

Already there. APIBind makes it easier to iterate versions of a
library without breaking dependent libraries who can remain bound to
earlier versions. All in the same translation unit.

> So Boost would be merely an umbrella organization, and what you call a
> distro may be the repository of Boost libraries.
> Wouldn't that be something worthwhile to think about and discuss ?

Already there. The web service dashboard I mentioned would let users
select what ordering criteria to rank the dashboard. You then press
download to download whichever libraries you want.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at