Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 2.0 ideas (was Re: Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's c
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 09:03:33
On 20 May 2016 at 17:14, Stefan Seefeld <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 20.05.2016 11:55, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>>> So my counter-proposal (which I have repeatedly voiced over past
>>> years) would be to let Boost evolve into an *umbrella organization*
>>> with a relatively high degree of autonomy for *member projects* to
>>> decide for their own on things like what infrastructure tools to use
>>> (to build, test, document, to track issues and feature requests,
>>> etc.), so long as certain quality standards are maintained.
>> And what will this umbrella organization actually *do*?
> * provide general guidelines (just as now, but relaxed)
> * provide infrastructure
> * provide administrative, financial, and perhaps legal support
> * do reviews to accept new member projects
Sounds fine to me.
> Please note that there is one important condition that such independence
> would build upon: A discipline of ABI- and API-compatibility between
> releases, that allows downstream project B to depend on upstream project
> A while keeping its own release cycle. Note that, while likely being the
> most difficult aspect of this proposal, it's something that we have been
> discussing for a long time, and which would be good engineering practice
> anyhow, and would benefit every single user, and thus is worth striving for.
I think that's worthwhile, and not too onerous for established
libraries. Could be a little more flexible for new libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk