Subject: Re: [boost] Where we are 1.65.0
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-10 10:38:57
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> That's false. People (some) *will* use them. Not supporting them
>>> basically means you're blocking those people from upgrading.
>>> Note that existing compilers already have C++17 stuff and people *are*
>>> using it.
>> Of course, there are enthusiasts but most people will start using C++17 much
>> later, e.g. when they upgrade the production system and it ships the new
> Are you proposing to delay fixes until those people start complaining?
That's not what he's proposing at all, is it?
Boost has a release schedule. People are waiting for Boost 1.65 -
either for fixes, or sometimes new features. Andrey is simply
suggesting that releasing 1.65 is more important right now, to keep to
that release schedule.There are people and groups who take
dependencies on Boost libraries not just because of the quality, but
because Boost releases frequently.
If we're balancing getting a Boost 1.65 release on time instead of
delaying it by a few weeks, versus releasing 1.65 with C++17 support
now instead of three months from now, Andrey's suggestion is not
unreasonable. C++17 will hopefully even be a published ISO standard by
the time 1.66 releases.
(December is when users would be able to hopefully expect 1.66,
ceteris paribus - assuming no more delays for 1.65, based on the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk