- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re: [boost] [review] [sqlite]
by Ruben Perez 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

(CC-ing the list) On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 12:11, Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 7:07 PM Ruben Perez <rubenperez038(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 3. What's the rationale behind BOOST_SQLITE_NO_VIRTUAL? Wouldn't > > > > setting it cause trouble, being a compiled library? > > > > > > It would. The idea is that you can use that for constrained (i.e. > > > embedded environments) to avoid the unnecessary vtable and to enforce > > > devirtualization if your compiler misses this. > > > > If I have read the code correctly, these functions seem to only be > > used in headers. Why do they need to be virtual? It looks like it > > could have been made a compile-time interface (i.e. a concept), > > completely avoiding the need for the macro. What's the rationale > > behind this? > > That's correct, that's also what it was originally. But the error > messages were horrendous. > By creating a base class you get good error messages (purely virtual > because method X is missing) and the compiler is still compelled to > devirtualize by the way it's used. > And because it's effectively unused, you can disable it. Couldn't you achieve a similar effect (scoped to C++20 and later) by conditionally using concepts? In a way similar to what Asio does to diagnose completion tokens (i.e. BOOST_ASIO_COMPLETION_TOKEN_FOR).

2 1

Re: [boost] [review] [sqlite]
by Ruben Perez 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

(CC-ing the list) On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 11:55, Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM Ruben Perez <rubenperez038(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What's the current recommended way to consume the library? Installing > > it with CMake seems to only install the binaries (and not the > > headers/cmake find_package scripts), and I haven't found a Jamfile to > > build the library as part of the Boost superproject. > > FetchContent + add_subdirectory is what I do. > > There also is a Jamfile in /build, but it's going to just to sqlite3, > because there's no `using sqlite ;` available at the moment. That's > probably only going to work on linux as of now. > Thanks, I completely missed out the Jamfile because of an unfortunate IDE setting.

1 0

[release] Boost 1.87.0 Release Candidate 3 is available
by Marshall Clow 15 Nov '24

15 Nov '24

The third release candidates for the 1.87.0 release are now available at: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.87.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 10ea784394be84794ed8981643ea0f05fae38de6aa595353115f85c79e4c1cd7 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.tar.gz 56db0fc204e6e0e40e1764800ef82475c96916e86112bc9627d1b94102cb786a boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.7z 45fcc8f7f63e023cdafc1d88b3b915f3feac6bc7aab52a91d5766b5a2248af6d boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.zip e0c971e3b92aa8ab781fe8239e050078600a446bd26c4509001037872974c4c2 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.tar.bz2 Changes since RC2: * The Boost.Parser library is included * A bug that caused compile failures in stl_interfaces with recent versions of clang has been fixed. * A bug that caused compile failures on Boost.Proces with gcc has been fixed. As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Release managers

5 11

Status of the 1.87.0 Beta Release
by Marshall Clow 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

There have been a couple of minor problems reported against RC2. However, yesterday we noticed that Boost.Parser was not part of the RC. We will be issuing an RC3 later today to rectify this. Unfortunately, this means that the beta release will be delayed by a couple of days — The Release Managers

1 0

[fsa] Current status of Fiscal Sponsor Agreement (repost)
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

(Reposting as PDF) Hi everyone, From the Fiscal Sponsorship Committee, we'd like to share with you the current status of the creation of the new Fiscal Sponsor Agreement for Boost: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVggIrQsl4FPrh3H3n-qmy60BclXSILS/view?usp=… We'll be sending periodic updates on this issue. Don't hesitate to ask about any doubt you may have. Best, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz The Fiscal Sponsorship Committee

2 2

[release] Boost 1.87.0 Beta 2 Release Candidate is available
by Marshall Clow 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

RC1 had some build issues which have been corrected. Available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.87.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are as follows: d24c351fdeaeefa4f25ce5e9365e9d69b86d342570eaac649e3b12f244a6eef7 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc2.7z 98090d258e1d50db30b549072a5db04210350fa7a5ede47d2c71a78af6724e55 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc2.zip 85075e27e6f866cbe3a00f1d5a57e801ce313119dcfd8327babf554c84af9ec3 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2 48e51ddfb67eace9181be87f2f25a06dace5e0eb4a84ab803ebfcd8d98e4aab1 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Release Managers

7 7

Formal Review Retrospective
by Vinnie Falco 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Ironically, a robust discussion regarding the review process and the usage of Slack is now taking place... on Slack. Arnaud made this suggestion which I am reposting here: "... formalizing a "Retrospective" phase as an actual part of the Formal Review could be key in avoiding criticism against the process to leak into criticism against the proposed library." I think this is a great idea. After each formal review result is announced, there is a new "retrospective" thread started which allows the community to reply and weigh in on how they thought the review was conducted. This actually happened organically in the last review of async-mqtt5 and I think it could be enhanced if the review wizard or review manager had pre-emptively started a retrospective thread where the replies could be accumulated. The subject line could for example be "[async-mqtt5] Review Retrospective" What do you think? Thanks

8 22

[fsa] Current status of Fiscal Sponsor Agreement
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Hi everyone, From the Fiscal Sponsorship Committee, we'd like to share with you the current status of the creation of the new Fiscal Sponsor Agreement for Boost: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMvWJi0guPCVI_YSD86FTgTMpf69lGiwRs0lgAa… We'll be sending periodic updates on this issue. Don't hesitate to ask about any doubt you may have. Best, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz The Fiscal Sponsorship Committee

1 0

async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED
by Klemens Morgenstern 09 Nov '24

09 Nov '24

Hi all, thanks to everyone participating in the review! I really want to express my appreciation to the reviewers, especially those who invested multiple hours if not days to review this library: thank you Vinnie, Ruben, Mohammad and Marcelo. I interpreted Darylls review as a "weak rejection", but since that doesn't exist in the formal review process I'll count it as a rejection. Leaving the recommendations at 1 ACCEPT 3 CONDITIONAL ACCEPT 2 REJECT The actual conditions for acceptance are: 1. Correct usage of the executor. It is an asio contract that the async operation always completes on the associated executor and mqtt5 should follow this. 2. Add logging/reporting facilities. A user should be able to follow what is happening internally and ideally react to it, especially concerning reconnects. I also recommend the authors to review all the comments, including the rejections (Daryll's review had interesting details) and non-review comments such as from Peter Turcan. I would also advise that inclusion in boost is usually a time to change the name, because the library now gains the boost. prefix. I.e. boost.async-mqtt5 might be a bit cumbersome. Also note that there is no time requirement to include this library in boost in the next release. Thanks again to everyone participating in the review and to Ivica & Mireo for their submission.

15 47

Slack and Formal Reviews
by Vinnie Falco 09 Nov '24

09 Nov '24

We need to solve the problem of review conversations taking place on Slack instead of the list. I would ultimately love a technical solution that allows discussions to also happen on Slack in a way that preserves the integrity of the review, and that might not be practical right this second. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. Formal review announcement will remind participants that conversations should happen on the list (and specifically mention that Slack should not be used) 2. If a Slack conversation is initiated during the review period, the review manager and library submitter will politely remind folks to move the discussion to the list. Perhaps some copy and pasting will be needed. 3. Periodic reminder from the review manager during the review process, if things get out of hand. 4. We explore ideas for how to incorporate other platforms into the review process. Mailing list participation is down, yet Slack participation is up. Ideally we figure out how to harness change instead of taking on losing battles. -- Regards, Vinnie Follow me on GitHub: https://github.com/vinniefalco

1 0