Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 14:33:56

> The CMake issue has been around for years and hasn't been able to progress 
> primarily because "obviously biased" vocal minorities were holding it back 
> with threats.

Really.

Just as my blood pressure was considering the option of going back to 
normal.

Suppose for the sake of argument that we all agree that we want Boost to 
move to CMake. We're here - Boost works, but is Boost.Build-based - and we 
want to move there - Boost works and is CMake-based.

There are two ways to do it. The first one is a gradual transition. We 
currently have two pieces of critical infrastructure reliant on 
Boost.Build - the test system and the build/install procedure. (Three 
actually if we include the doc build.)

How would a gradual transition work? For the testing part, obviously, we 
keep the Boost.Build testing operational and start building a parallel test 
infrastructure based on CMake/CTest. Libraries that want to be tested via b2 
supply test/Jamfile, libraries that want to be tested via CTest supply... 
test/CMakeLists.txt, for instance. Libraries that supply neither aren't 
tested by either.

For the building part, we start supplying a secondary way to build and 
install Boost, alongside the existing one.

The second possibility is a sudden jump. We move, for both testing and 
building, to CMake at once.

How would this be best handled? By building the CMake infrastructure on a 
branch until it's ready for the switch.

Organizationally speaking, what needed to be done? First, we choose which 
scenario we prefer. Second, the SC appoints a person in charge of realizing 
the plan. If gradual, he sets off to work with the results immediately 
appearing in Boost as libraries are picked up by the CMake test/build 
infrastructure one by one. If sudden, he sets off to work on his branch. 
When ready, the SC votes on the switch.

So far I have left unspoken something that everyone should have picked up - 
the role of Rene in all this. It's patently obvious that a gradual 
transition would be much (much!) harder without him around, so we've pretty 
much ruled that possibility out now. This was, in my opinion, completely 
unnecessary.

Or was it?

> The CMake issue has been around for years and hasn't been able to progress 
> primarily because "obviously biased" vocal minorities were holding it back 
> with threats.

To put it bluntly, did the glorious CMake transition HAVE to start with 
killing the workhorse and driving away the rider who got us where we are?

And even if some of you believe that the answer to this question is "yes, it 
did have", can you not at least bring yourselves to not state that openly?

Boost.Build and Rene have done a lot for the C++ community. Unless and until 
you can match this track record...