(re-sent on list) On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, at 9:21 PM, Artyom Beilis wrote:
I honestly hope that Boost aims for something better than not the worst library to deal with It just clearly shows how broken the situation is.
So, if someone says «my experience isn't so problematic» or even «boost is not by far the worst of the pack», that is evidence of "how broken the situation is"? That is a logical inversion that doesn't fly for me.
What is needed is fixing the policies and creating some LTS versions... I don't understand how it isn't the _obvious_ thing for any SW developer.
I look around me and see them EVERYWHERE in package managers, whether with commercial LTS distro support or without. I do not see how adhering to LTS distribution versions doesn't fit your description. Mind you, it doesn't suit my use case because I require a higher level of control, but many projects just use Filesystem, Program Options and IOStreams... so yeah. That's fair game. If you're like me, you raise the deployment effort accordingly. It's different stances. There's something to be said for Boost to offer something akin to the stable subset (especially with modules around the corner), but I do not see the " large void" at the moment, that would be filled by it. Seth