Subject: Re: [boost] Deprecation Policy
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-18 02:56:39
On 5/17/2015 4:08 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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).
could we start by agreeing that not every set of C++-level components
will actually benefit, in a cost/benefit sense, from separate
development and release? Say, Qt has a few libraries, but has monolithic
release. It might be possible to permit QtGui 5.N+1 to work with QtCore
5.N, but the effort and alternative cost of doing so would greatly
exceed any benefit.
If we agree on that, then maybe it would be better to propose
specific boost libraries that should be released individually, do
that, and see whether users appreciate the benefit? That seems
more practical than a blanket statement about all boost libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk