Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Ion GaztaÃ±aga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 15:21:27
On 19/07/2017 16:33, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> 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?
Thanks Peter. I think you've expressed very precisely what I (and maybe
We want both Rene and Jon in Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk