Subject: Re: [boost] Deprecation Policy
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-16 21:08:14
On May 16, 2015 6:55 PM, "charleyb123 ." <charleyb123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Rob sayeth:
> <snip, deprecation policy, modular-or-monolithic distribution>,
> Stefan respondeth:
> > I imagine it's entirety possible to produce a "boost release" (or
> > to use a term Niall suggested) consisting of all the latest releases of
> > individual boost libraries.
> > You might argue that it's hard to guarantee compatibility among them.
> > that has been a problem Boost has been plagued with forever: no two
> > releases have ever given any guaranty of compatibility. So here again, a
> > little change in policy would very much benefit boost users.
> > Stefan
> This is a very interesting idea: The concept of a "Distribution".
> I could see something like:
Indeed an interesting thought though a) yet another responsibility for
boost (caring about deployment) and b) quite tangential to the original
point which was about figuring out whether a given library was maintained
To reiterate my proposal:
Let's try to modularize boost libraries to the point where they can be
developed, built, and released individuality.
Let's try to provide backwards compatibility guarantees such that users may
swap in new versions of a library without fearing failures (either at
compile time nor runtime).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk