Re: Build Boost Back Better

From: Dominique Devienne (ddevienne_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-06 14:47:13

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:13 PM Niall Douglas via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 13:58, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >> So that's a big turnoff for me at least, it reminds me of that
> >> all-in-one integrated thingy which Boost had yonks ago and we were never
> >> able to get off some very ancient version of it full of known security
> >> holes. I **really** don't want to go back to that.
> > But please don't go about writing about security holes or abondonware
> > or bloat for things Dr Hipp does...
>
> The issue [...] which Boost had [...] wasn't that there weren't new versions.
> [...] The issue was that upgrading the existing to newer broke stuff [...]

Good thing Fossil and SQLite have a excellent track record of backward
compatibility then.

> [...] learned to love GitHub. [...]

But that's orthogonal, no? GitHub does not have MLs or a Boost-wide
forum, does it?

I don't have experience with GitHub discussions, but I do subscribe to
lots of GitHub
projects and some issues, getting email notifications from them, but
this doesn't feel
like a forum or an ML to me. But perhaps I'm missing your point and
what you are actually
advocating for, as a replacement for the current MLs? In the GitHub
ecosystem perhaps? --DD

PS: Another anecdote regarding "security" and Fossil. When SHA1 was "broken",
  Dr Hipp switched Fossil to SHA3 in a matter of days, retaining BC
with former artifacts using SHA1,
  while it took months (or is it years?) for Git to upgrade its
hashes. But that's about Fossil *SCM*,
  while here we are merely discussing Fossil for its Forum feature
(yet, Forum posts are SCM artifacts
  in and of themselves I believe, although I'm not sure of that. They
are editable and versioned for sure).