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

From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-27 21:10:56

El 27/05/2020 a las 12:57, degski via Boost escribió:
> 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.

In all honesty, I don't see how this idea (which seems interesting, BTW) 
is in
any way connected to the epochs proposal. Would you care to elaborate? 
Thank you!

Joaquín M López Muñoz