Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Fwd: [boost] Library devs only: Boost v2.x distro design questions
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-24 20:00:09

Hi Stefan, Christian,

Shall we agree on common ground for GIL?

I think it would be better to speak as a team than posting
individually - there's enough chaos already :-)

I personally am willing to leave the answer to Stefan,
as GIL team representative who is also interested
and experienced regarding general Boost development
direction, architecturing building, packaging configuration etc.

We are already at C++11, but I don't mind jumping to C++17.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 21:12
Subject: [boost] Library devs only: Boost v2.x distro design questions
To: Boost Developers List <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>

Splitting this off from the other thread, can I get feedback from Boost
library maintainers ONLY. Not users, not non-maintainers.

Q0: Are you willing to do the work to adapt your library for any Boost
v2.x distro if it were to happen?

Q1: Would you prefer a new, separate Boost v2.x distro in parallel to
the v1.x distro, or to keep everything within one v1.x distro?

Q2: Would you be intending to keep your library inside Boost v1.x, move
it exclusively to Boost v2.x, or have it exist in both Boost v1.x and
v2.x but with different defaults configured? Also, would the version in
v1.x be hard forked from any v2.x edition i.e. the v1.x edition would
get orphaned?

Q3: What C++ standard should Boost v2.x's master build system be
defaulted to? C++ 11, 14, 17 or 20?

Q4: Should Boost v2.x use a boost2 namespace, or namespace boost {
inline namespace v2 { }}? (This affects whether Boost v2 and v1 editions
of your library can be used within the same translation unit)

Q5: What master buildsystem should Boost v2.x use? Boost.Build, cmake,
Build2, something else?

Q6: Should Boost v2.x's libraries auto integrate individually into some
package manager? If so, which ones do you intend to support?

Q7: Should Boost v2.x have official release versions done by release
managers, or should it be a rolling release of "whatever last passed the
CI @ 100%"? Note that you can have this, and have official release
versions of "especially known good" editions too.

Q8: Should Boost v2.x use a local HTML server to serve documentation,
and the static HTML docs be dispensed with as a requirement?

Q9: What are your feelings towards the use of Python to script
infrastructure and tooling in any Boost v2.x? For example, Python to run
a local HTML server to serve documentation locally, or Python to build a
release etc

Q10: What parts of core Boost are you utterly dependent upon, and would
absolutely need ported to any Boost v2.x as no STL alternatives exist?

I could go on, but let's stop there for now.


Unsubscribe & other changes:

Mateusz Loskot,

Boost list run by Boost-Gil-Owners