Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 16:01:17
M.A. van den Berg wrote:
> Personally I think allowing boost branded libraries (approved by boost,
> conforms to boost guidelines.. something like that) that are separately
> downloadable -just like any lib on Github really- can have many benefits:
> It allows for growth in the number of libraries, it decouples releases,
> abandoned libraries wonât hurt the quality of a release because there is
> no longer a monolithic releases.
> Boost is a brand with a reputation, it imposes requirement on libraries
> that help build that reputation. A monolithic release is not an essential
> aspect for that.
That's the underlying assumption of those who press for change. What if it's
Boost releases are the signature product of Boost. What if the value of the
Boost brand is substantially contained in Boost releasing quality code as a
single unit that can be adopted wholesale in a single step?
What if turning Boost into a committee that merely rubber-stamps libraries
would destroy the value of the Boost brand?
Incidentally, the growth in number of libraries is currently impeded not by
the monolithic release, but by the review process. That is, it's the rubber
stamping part that's the problem, not hypothetical entrenched evil groups of
old people who hypothetically delete people's CMakeLists.txt files under the
cover of the night.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk