Re: Option 1: Alliance stewardship of Boost

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-07 12:41:40

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 4:51 AM Boris Kolpackov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > I wouldn't remember it that way.
> >
> > My memory is that Dave asked for the help of a select few in writing the
> > tooling to do the conversion because the Boost community had proved
> > singularly useless in taking a decision, and he was going to impose a
> > decision as BDFL after a great deal of wailing and complaint about there
> > being any change at all. He then rammed it through fairly
> > unceremoniously giving people very little choice about it.
>
> Hm, that's not how I remember it, and I was on the Steering Committee
> at the time.
>
> There was a heated Future of Boost session at C++Now where Dave used
> some strong words to express his frustration with a few Boost developers
> holding hostage the modernization and thus the future of Boost (or
> something to this effect). However, it was the Committee that then
> voted in favor of switching to CMake (and, no, Dave was not on the
> Committee).
>
> (FWIW, I abstained from that vote due to what I thought could be viewed
> as a conflict of interest: I would have voted against and at that time
> I was already working on build2, so it could have been viewed as me
> trying to undermine the competition. But, looking back, I should have
> voted anyway.)

Niall was referring to the svn->git conversion. And, I think, you are
referring to the cmake work?

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net