Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 18:47:17

On 14 May 2015 at 23:29, Stephen Kelly wrote:

> > Eh? Each git submodule is a direct dependency. Any git submodules
> > inside those is their direct dependencies.
> 
> Haha!
> 
> Enjoy handling cycles :)
> 
> Also enjoy explaining to Robert what 'cycles' and 'dependencies' are :). 
> Solve that problem and Boost might not be completely out in the cold as far 
> as C++17/Clang modules are concerned.

I believe I have a solution based on pinning branches instead of SHAs 
in submodules, and that APIBind based libraries export what API 
version they provide.

> Is the boost community self-aware enough to be able to make a list of
> libraries which are maintained and a list of those that are not
> maintained? 

Marshall have several lists. The strictest lists about 60 
undermaintained libraries.

> Do you even want to know? I wonder what would even be done with that
> information? Would you document unmaintained libraries as such, or be
> ashamed of doing so? Would you consider whether to keep releasing the
> unmaintained ones? 

I believe a change in how inactive maintainers are removed has been 
agreed, plus measures to improve finding new maintainers for 
unmaintained libraries.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/