Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-03 03:31:14

On 10/2/17 11:20 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>> c) And that any such proposals should go through the Boost formal review
>> process.  Traditionally, the boost formal review process has never
>> applied to boost tools so this would be a departure from traditional
>> practice.
> There is good reason why tooling doesn't go through a formal review
> process, it could never pass a formal review.

I don't think anyone can know that.
> I think requiring a cmake conversion to pass a formal review is an
> impossible ask.

Doesn't seem impossible to me.

> he cmake conversion will never reach the quality of the
> Boost.Build

I think that we're here because many believe that CMake has always been
a better alternative than boost build.

> one in any reasonable time period, and moreover, everything
> keeps shifting with time.

everthing always shifts with time.

> I'd support a simple majority, yay or nay vote for the proposed cmake
> design. Without commentary or review. Makes things feasible. And a
> second simple majority yay or nay for when Boost.Build is to be turned
> off (if ever).

Hmmm - the boost review process is certainly nothing like a simple
yay/nay vote. This is exactly the reason that the boost librarys are
considered among the best.

Also, there has not been actually been any cmake design submitted. Paul
has indicated that he believes that it is unnecessary to do this. So
under these conditions, no boost-like review could be conducted. So we
are again at a stand still.

It's a golden opportunity for anyone who want's to submit their own
proposal for usage of CMake in Boost.

Robert Ramey

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