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.Â 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
> 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++
> Â Â Â Â Â ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk