Re: [boost] Library devs only: Boost v2.x distro design questions

Subject: Re: [boost] Library devs only: Boost v2.x distro design questions
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-24 19:33:41

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:12 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Splitting this off from the other thread, can I get feedback from Boost
> library maintainers ONLY. Not users, not non-maintainers.
>
> Q0: Are you willing to do the work to adapt your library for any Boost
> v2.x distro if it were to happen?
>

I've already done it.

Q1: Would you prefer a new, separate Boost v2.x distro in parallel to
> the v1.x distro, or to keep everything within one v1.x distro?
>

One.

Q2: Would you be intending to keep your library inside Boost v1.x, move
> it exclusively to Boost v2.x, or have it exist in both Boost v1.x and
> v2.x but with different defaults configured? Also, would the version in
> v1.x be hard forked from any v2.x edition i.e. the v1.x edition would
> get orphaned?
>

Only one that works on whatever that is script generated from an entirely
separate github repo outside of Boost.

> Q3: What C++ standard should Boost v2.x's master build system be
> defaulted to? C++ 11, 14, 17 or 20?
>

C++11 as that's where the user base is at 66% of users.

Q4: Should Boost v2.x use a boost2 namespace, or namespace boost {
> inline namespace v2 { }}? (This affects whether Boost v2 and v1 editions
> of your library can be used within the same translation unit)
>

You forgot to also ask about macros.

Q5: What master buildsystem should Boost v2.x use? Boost.Build, cmake,
> Build2, something else?
>

Irrelevant.

> Q6: Should Boost v2.x's libraries auto integrate individually into some
> package manager? If so, which ones do you intend to support?
>

You should watch <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBP17HQAQjk>.

> Q7: Should Boost v2.x have official release versions done by release
> managers, or should it be a rolling release of "whatever last passed the
> CI @ 100%"? Note that you can have this, and have official release
> versions of "especially known good" editions too.
>

This has been asked before and the answer has been to keep releases.

Q8: Should Boost v2.x use a local HTML server to serve documentation,
> and the static HTML docs be dispensed with as a requirement?
>

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q9: What are your feelings towards the use of Python to script
> infrastructure and tooling in any Boost v2.x?

I wrote most of those Python scripts so I'm fine with it.

> For example, Python to run
> a local HTML server to serve documentation locally,

Different way to ask the previous question..
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> or Python to build a
> release etc
>

We already use Python for releases etc. works fine and reliably.

Q10: What parts of core Boost are you utterly dependent upon, and would
> absolutely need ported to any Boost v2.x as no STL alternatives exist?
>

The build system and Predef.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net