Subject: Re: [boost] Deprecation Policy
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-18 18:29:41
On 18/05/15 02:56 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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.
Sure, fair enough.
> 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.
OK, that's a good suggestion. So, as I'm trying to get back into
Boost.Python, I'm considering decoupling that from the rest of Boost. I
think this is an obvious first candidate, notably because it's a
substantial library (not header-only) that few other Boost components
Any thoughts on that ?
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk