Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 14:40:31
Since you are making a variety of accusations..
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Gary Furnish via Boost <
> I've observed from the outside that basically no one was ever
> going to touch boost.build because the people who like it (who happen
> to be single points of failure for the entire boost ecosystem)
> basically out-shouted everyone whenever a technical discussion came
> Its not like there haven't been concerns about boost.build for
All build systems, heck all software, has "concerns".
> Its not like the documentation for boost.build wasn't
> basically "ask the mailing list or prey someone else has asked stack
> overflow" for years.
The documentation is bad compared to what other documentation?
> Its not like every time a new version of MSVC
> beta comes out boost.build doesn't break and its not a priority
> because the maintainers of boost.build don't use MSVC.
Prove that it wasn't a priority. Considering that the last Boost release
was delayed precisely to support MSVC building.
> Its not like
> everyone submitting to boost doesn't complain about having to learn a
> non-standard build system that isn't documented richly enough to write
> scripts from scratch.
Again, prove it.
> These are not new problems. I am *really* glad
> that SC did something because in my mind it means boost won't die a
> slow death to just posting independent libs on github.
Prove that the build system is the reason Boost is "dying a slow death"?
For that matter prove that Boost is dying in the first place.
Note.. Yes I will keep posting in these threads in response to false
accusations to the decades of work some of us have put into Boost.
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail