Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-21 20:30:27

> The problem might be that if you don't involve the developers,
> they get very offended, and for good reasons.

As no less than two members of the SC have already said here in this
thread, boost-dev was consulted and in depth, with at least three
boost-dev members proposing technical cmake solution prototypes for the
SC to consider. The same old arguments were made, nothing new over
previous discussions of the merits or non-merits of cmake vs
were advanced. The SC therefore decided that this decision was making no
progress due to stalemate, and enforced a decision.

You probably wanted some big banner in the Subject line like "IF YOU
originally set up doesn't allow that to happen. Nobody from the SC can
claim that the SC will take some action until they *have* taken some
action, and they can't take an action until a *formal* written proposal
has been laid before them to vote upon.

Formal written proposals land before the SC to vote on all the time.
Some are rejected, some approved. I've written a few myself, but not
recently as I am winding down my involvement with Boost.

>> If
>> you had taken any time to be familiar with what is discussed in the
>> non-technical admin community, then this decision about cmake above was
>> obviously coming over this past year. I was part of multiple off list
>> discussions, and that was a small subset of the total ongoing. Indeed,
>> it's why I've been so sweetness and nice here on boost-dev in the past
>> year, I was finally seeing some movement on choosing a direction for
>> Boost after many years of trying to no avail. So no longer any need to
>> be nasty here anymore. And for the record, more controversial breaking
>> change is coming. So don't be surprised when it lands.
> Huh? More announcements of decisions behind closed doors without list
> discussions?

All stakeholders involved in the cmake decision were consulted in depth
and many weeks in advance. There was nothing closed door about it.
Search the boost-dev archives, it's there.

> Look, everybody here would like Boost to be easier to consume for end
> users. But that's a goal that needs a plan and means and feasibility
> studies. Secondary, should we abandon internally? That's a
> different thing entirely.
> I hope the SC realize how damaging their actions are.

You all should read the announcement again. The only decision enforced
was that cmake is going to happen. Nothing was said about form, design,
process, timetable, or anything else. Nothing was said about removing
Boost.Build either. Quite frankly the reaction here was way overblown to
what had happened. But then if you don't maintain a steady beat of
breaking change, people way overreact when it comes. And we haven't had
a breaking change here since the git migration five years ago. And that
was *awful*. So far, this is going better. Long may it continue.

Nothing in any of this reply has not already been previously said on
this thread by SC members. I am, quite literally, repeating what they
already have said here, despite that I am not a member of the SC. I just
pay attention to what people write on boost-dev.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at