Re: [boost] [release] 1.69.0 deadline for new libraries approaching

Subject: Re: [boost] [release] 1.69.0 deadline for new libraries approaching
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 19:08:52

On 10/22/18 11:45 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:

>>> OK... do we want CMake config files installed by 1.69 or not, then?
>>
>> I'd like to know this as well.  If so, I presume that we can consider 
>> the Boost/CMake issues resolved and we can just move on from this?
> 
> What issues do you think are resolved ? As far as I understand, the 
> current endeavor is to auto-generate config files to make it easier to 
> consume (individual) Boost libraries in CMake projects. That's entirely 
> orthogonal to the question of whether and how Boost libraries switch to 
> CMake.

> So, as far as I'm concerned, your effort to agree on a Request For 
> Proposals is still very much relevant.

The reason I ask is that working to implement something presumes that 
there's consensus on what should be implemented.  I don't want to find 
myself in the position of committing serious effort to a task which has 
been eclipsed by events.

Historically, Boost Tooling has been developed in just this way. 
Someone with access just implements something and drops on the rest of 
us.  I think that this practice is one of the reasons that we've been 
frustrated with boost tooling in general.  My proposal is/was an attempt 
to break this cycle by approaching from a different angle - inspired by 
Boosts success in other aspects - motivating the creating of quality C++ 
libraries.

Robert Ramey

> 
> 
> Stefan
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Â Â Â Â Â  ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost