Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-05 01:37:50
James E. King, III wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > James E. King, III wrote:
> >> I was wondering, does it even make sense to have the default RNG of
> >> uuids::random_generator set to a PseudoRandomNumberGenerator for
> >> boost::uuid?
> > No, in my opinion it doesn't. basic_random_generator has to be retained
> > for compatibility, but random_generator should just obtain random bytes
> > directly. You're right that this is a breaking change though - a
> > justified one, in my opinion.
> Looks like November 1 was the deadline for making major changes for
> 1.66.0, which I assume would include breaking changes...
That's true, in principle.
The intent behind the rule is however that this refers to changes that break
other Boost libraries, not client code outside of Boost. Client code
typically sees the breaking change after the release, or at best after the
beta, not before. So breaking client code does not in general impede the
release process, whereas breaking other Boost libraries (or otherwise
introducing regressions into the testing and release procedures) most
certainly can and does.
But a permission from a release manager cannot hurt if you decide to pursue
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk