Re: Option 1: Alliance stewardship of Boost

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-07 13:57:41

On 07/08/2024 13:41, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
> 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?

I was referring to the svn->git conversion.

Apologies, I should have clarified I meant Dave Abrahams not David Sankel.

Niall