Re: [epochs] Proposal for an epoch-based organization of Boost libraries

From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-27 10:57:59

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 09:21, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Yes, in the context of the proposal you're referring to so-called
> "rejection rule 2", which is practically
> custom-made for the case of Boost.MPL. I personally find that this lib,
> which was a breakthrough back in
> the day, now it's too much of a burden in non-C++03 environments, given
> the much lighter alternatives.
>

Although I think the mechanics of the proposal are well worked out as I
posted earlier, but on reflection, I don't think this is the right way
forward. The world (linux had already) is moving to live-at-head, see the
development of vcpkg. I consider this an old-school solution to a
new-school problem, so it will stumble on. I think, that IIRC what pdimov5
suggested somewhere last year, to re-baptise master -> release, develop ->
master, experimetal -> develop, and just live at head, is the best way
forward. Doing a release comes down to adding a tag to a master-commit and
everybody carries on busying themselves in experimental in the meanwhile.

degski
-- 
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey