Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-30 15:40:50

On 5/30/17 8:06 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> - No cmake, just bjam
> 
> Wait, what? Why would we want to remove functionality that already
> exists? I like the CMake script since it generates a Visual Studio
> project file (.vcxproj). Please don't take this away, its helpful.

+1

I'm not a huge fan of CMake, but then I'm not crazy about bjam either. I 
think library authors should have the option of including CMake files, 
just as they do files for appveyor, travis, etc.  Of course bjam files 
would remain a requirement.

The question of including stuff "outside" of boost is of course subject 
to dispute and discussion which I guess has to be handled on a case by 
case basis.  In this case I think it's below the minimal threshold of 
obtrusiveness.  CMake files to add some "clutter", but those who don't 
use/need can ignore them.  So, if the author want's to, I believe he 
should be able to include CMake files.

Robert Ramey