Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-22 19:08:25

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

> 
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]>
>> To: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
>> Cc: <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 9:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

>> I really think that *we can* achieve this goal.
> 
> I would say 'we COULD' achieve this goal - if there was a
> true desire to do so.

You don't belive that things COULD change?
 
>>> Your "Maintainence Guidlines" presume a consensus
>>> about what should be acceptable practice where no
>>> such consensus actually exists.
>>
>> Which acceptable practice are you referring to for which there is no
>> consensus?
> 
> My view is that it is good practice to consider
> breaking an interface should be considered a bug.

Does your view accepts that exceptionally a well documented breaking change with  a reasoable deprecated period could not be considered a bug?
 
> The responses to the posting cited above, indicate
> to me that there is no consensus to support
> this view point.

You are right, there was no consensus at all respect to this point. May be we can reach a consensus in other points that can make Boost more backward compatible if not completly backward compatible. Do you think that the deprecation of a feature should be considered as a bug? If not how long should a reasonable period be for you?

<snip> ...
 
>> Please could you participate in the elaboration of this guidelines,
> 
> Basically, the guidelines are fine
Thanks. 
> The guidelines for authors should be separated from those
> for users.

Yes, I could add an index by author, user, RM. Why not. 

> For users, "don't use "using" " could be part of a larger list
> of suggestions for getting the most benefit from the libraries.

I'm sure that you have think about it already. Could you share with us some of these suggestions?

Thanks,

Vicente