Re: [boost] [outcome] Review of Outcome

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Review of Outcome
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-29 22:25:23

Niall Douglas wrote:

> ... I'd be interested on whether you'd prefer one of these two options:
>
> 1. Cronjob generated boostorg/outcome repo from ned14/outcome repo
>   - Licence only BSL
>   - No git submodules
>   - No cmake, just bjam
>   - No file clutter in root of repo as at present, or files unrelated to 
> absolute minimum necessary for Boost
>
>
> 2. Same physical repo as standalone Outcome
>   - Dual licensed
>   - git submodules, but don't need to be checked out
>   - cmake + bjam
>   - Inevitable file clutter as so much tooling insists on files in 
> specific locations

I think I favor option 1 from those two. It probably would be even nicer if 
you could make boostorg/outcome as described in (1) the primary and git 
submodule it into the standalone ned14/outcome, but (1) looks good enough.