- Boost-announce - lists.preview.boost.org

[boost] [openmethod] Peer review conclusion
by Дмитрий Архипов 28 May '25

28 May '25

Dear Boost community, the formal review of candidate Boost.OpenMethod has taken place between 28th of April and May 7th. I have received 6 reviews in total. Four of the reviews recommended unconditional, and 1 conditional acceptance. One reviewer recommended to reject the library. The reviews came from: - Joaquin M López Muñoz, - Christian Mazakas, - Ruben Perez, - Yannick Le Goc, - Klemens Morgenstern, - Andrzej Krzemienski. Also, several people have given insightful comments but did not provide a review. I would like to thank all of the people who took their time to write reviews or participate in the discussions. Your effort was very important and valuable. The outcome of the review is that Boost.OpenMethod is ACCEPTED with some CONDITIONS. 1. The convenience header <boost/openmethod.hpp> should be changed to not introduce identifiers to the global namespace. Reviewers suggested several alternatives to that: either moving those global entities into an alternative header, or put them into a dedicated namespace which users could use via using namespace. 2. The library should not choose an arbitrary ambiguous overrider. Virtually all reviewers have expressed strong dislike for this behaviour. The default should be an error. More lax overrider selection may be provided as an option. 3. The library's documentation should be improved in several areas: * The concepts used by the documentation should be explained early on and more thoroughly. * The library should not claim to implement N2216, as it diverges from it significantly. Instead it may remark on being inspired by it. * Better explain potential platform-specific limitations of certain use cases (runtime loading of shared libraries) and error conditions. In addition, I want to discuss several criticisms that have been expressed during the review. One is that essentially the library doesn't solve a problem that is worth solving. That is, you never need an open set of types combined with an open set of operations. I believe that 10 years of library's use should mostly dispel such concerns. I personally have also encountered such a situation in my practice. The second criticism is that the flexibility of the library comes with higher chance of programmer error, as some usual safe guards go out the window. I can attest that in "many types, many operations" situations alternative approaches are comparably error-prone. It seems to me that this is largely inherent to the complexity of the problem. My advice to the author is to highlight dangerous situations, so that potential users can better evaluate if the added flexibility is worth it. Thanks to Jean-Louis Leroy for submitting this library to Boost. And thanks again to the reviewers and everyone who provided feedback, who ultimately made this review possible.

1 0

[boost] [OpenMethod] Boost.OpenMethod review scheduled
by Дмитрий Архипов 11 Apr '25

11 Apr '25

The review for the proposed Boost.OpenMethod library by Jean-Louis Leroy is scheduled to take place from April 28 to May 07. OpenMethods solve the Expression Problem by making it possible to define free virtual functions, i.e. virtual functions that exist outside of a class The library repository is here: https://github.com/jll63/Boost.OpenMethod. The documentation is here: https://jll63.github.io/Boost.OpenMethod.

1 0

[release] Boost 1.88.0
by Marshall Clow 11 Apr '25

11 Apr '25

Release 1.88.0 of the Boost C++ Libraries is now available. These open-source libraries work well with the C++ Standard Library, and are usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use. The release contains two new libraries: * Hash2: An extensible hashing framework, from Peter Dimov and Christian Mazakas. * MQTT5: MQTT5 client library built on top of Boost.Asio, from Ivica Siladić, Bruno Iljazović, and Korina Šimičević. as well as numerous enhancements and bug fixes for existing libraries. For details, including download links, see <http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1.88.0> You can also download directly from: <https://archives.boost.io/release/1.88.0/source/> To install this release on your system, see <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/more/getting_started/index.html> Thanks to everyone who participated in this release. -- The Boost Release Team Marshall Clow, Glen Fernandes, Ion Ion Gaztañaga

1 0

release] Boost 1.88.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 16 Mar '25

16 Mar '25

Boost release 1.88.0 beta 1 is now available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.88.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are: bc4948bc664fde0c2142badae2679a42124b464dc58019250afe0ef57fd7763e boost_1_88_0_rc1.zip 3c334a9a743b68a35452b0223be8932fb39f26a6938382f9b9e625c4df99602c boost_1_88_0_rc1.tar.gz 9e42c0611500151d795d66a07ef0a21036c02d24678e2e887caf6d97fcbc25ca boost_1_88_0_rc1.tar.bz2 7faf60c4cb12ee90270e41716cf3735a8739016d7346983ce9f5e899e510b26d boost_1_88_0_rc1.7z Release notes (still need updates): https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_88_0.html Please try the beta and report any problems you encounter. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. -- Boost Release Team

1 0

[release] Boost 1.87.0
by Marshall Clow 12 Dec '24

12 Dec '24

Release 1.87.0 of the Boost C++ Libraries is now available. These open-source libraries work well with the C++ Standard Library, and are usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use. This release contains two new libraries: * Boost.Parser: A framework for building parsers, from Zach Laine. The release also contains numerous enhancements and bug fixes for existing libraries. For details, including download links, see <http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1.87.0> You can also download directly from: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.87.0/> To install this release on your system, see <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/release/more/getting_started/index.html> Thanks to everyone who participated in this release. -- The Boost Release Team Marshall Clow, Glen Fernandes, Ion Gaztañaga

1 0

[release] Boost 1.87.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

Boost release 1.86.0 beta 1 is now available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.87.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are: 2e7cdf358526e8937b36b93fc96c501b8d6a0c8436e95e65440de31c48ec3086 boost_1_87_0_b1.tar.bz2 98a86940c13509dfd0288a3075280f46a76c9a3faeb8a9bf49ca7f9e6a271995 boost_1_87_0_b1.tar.gz 2ca4c019d0c96fd160dec5292a7a6bfcf7b4e592cd238a2207e17084f8021d08 boost_1_87_0_b1.zip 5ea32facd963dbb79ceb5bda7ef7546017ea5da854158f8933bbad74d6bbe622 boost_1_87_0_b1.7z This is slightly different than the RC3. Someone committed a documentation fix to master after we had started the release process, and rather than re-do the whole thing (and re-tag everything), we decided to go with the release that we prepared. The person who did this has been informed of the problems that he caused, and I don’t think he’ll do it again. Release notes (still need updates): https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_87_x.html Please try the beta and report any problems you encounter. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. -- Boost Release Team

1 0

Scheduled review of Decimal library
by Mateusz Loskot 07 Oct '24

07 Oct '24

Folks, On behalf of the Review Wizards Team, formal review of proposed Decimal library has now been scheduled: - https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/878 The review details should be soon displayed on the website - https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html Best regards, Mateusz Loskot

1 0

Scheduled review of SQLite library
by Mateusz Loskot 05 Oct '24

05 Oct '24

Folks, On behalf of the Review Wizards Team, formal review of proposed SQLite library has now been scheduled: - https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/877 The review details should be soon displayed on the website - https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html Best regards, Mateusz Loskot

1 0

Scheduled review of MQTT library
by Mateusz Loskot 05 Oct '24

05 Oct '24

Folks, On behalf of the Review Wizards Team, formal review of proposed MQTT library has now been scheduled: - https://github.com/boostorg/website/pull/877 The review details should be soon displayed on the website - https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html Best regards, Mateusz Loskot

1 0

Boost Asset Stewardship Review Result
by Glen Fernandes 28 Sep '24

28 Sep '24

Dear Boost developers and users, This concludes the Boost Asset Stewardship review was conducted between 09/03 and 09/22. I want to thank everyone who submitted a review and everyone who otherwise contributed to the discussion. What follows is my review result. For fairness and for the record, this is my connection to all parties involved: For the Boost C++ libraries I am or have been: - A Boost library author, - A maintainer of at least three Boost libraries, - A contributor to at least ten other Boost libraries, - A review manager of at least two Boost reviews, - A release manager, - A maintainer of the Boost GitHub organization, - A moderator of the Boost mailing lists, For the Boost Foundation I am or have been: - A former member of the Boost Steering Committee - A director on the board, For the C++ Alliance I have been: - A volunteer that helped review project specifications and resumes, On behalf of the Boost community, I accept the C++ Alliance Fiscal Sponsorship proposal with the following condition: - The new committee should be named something which clearly indicates that its purpose is confined to Boost's assets or infrastructure. There should be no confusion or question over whether it has any control or even other influence over the C++ library development. Please avoid any mention of "Steering" or "Direction". I accept the three initial members of the committee as proposed (Ion, Rene, Joaquin) without reservations. All three are Boost developers whom I respect and I am confident of their ability and their desire to serve the Boost community. While I appreciate the invitation to join, and would otherwise never refuse an opportunity to help Boost, I feel like my making the acceptance decision of the founding committee should prohibit me being on that list. The reviews and the discussion has convinced me that the Fiscal Sponsorship model is the right choice for Boost going forward. - It provides us with the financing we need now, and secures a very credible path for depending on them going forward. Moreover, it puts the administration of those resources in the hands of those representing our community. The Foundation can and has tried to achieve the same thing, but it should be obvious that it does not have the same level of financial resources, or technical and legal expertise at its disposal. - It has the support of a great majority of the Boost community. It is no secret that there has been a growing rift between the Boost developers and some of the Foundation members, despite my and others best attempts at healing it. Even with the same resources provided to the Foundation, I don't see it achieving the same level of acceptance and consensus that the C++ Alliance has. I want to thank the C++ Alliance for crafting this proposal, and giving us a solution for supporting those parts of Boost infrastructure that are increasingly expensive and complex to manage. This will allow the rest of us to focus on what we love doing: Working on C++ libraries. And I would be remiss if I did not repeat my gratitude to the C++ Alliance and to Vinnie for those times in the past he has come to Boost's rescue, many of these at my request. Next, I want to thank all present and past members of the Foundation and the Steering Committee for their service to the Boost project. Especially, I want to thank Michael Caisse for all the time and energy he has dedicated over the years to supporting the parts of Boost site and mailing lists that we take for granted. On that same note I want to thank the Foundation for agreeing to this review and committing to its result. If nothing else, I hope this act alone demonstrates to the community that despite past events, the intention of the Foundation is to act in accordance with the community's wishes. I would also like to make it known that I will submit a suggestion in the next meeting that the Boost Foundation rename itself to not include the word "Boost". Ultimately, it will come down to a vote between the board members, but I believe this is the best thing for the Foundation. Just as the rename from BoostCon to C++Now enabled the conference to achieve its goals of reaching the broader C++ community, the hope is that this will similarly enable the Foundation to succeed with its current mission, which spans beyond Boost. Finally, I want to repeat my thanks to the community for their voice in this review. While the list above of my involvement in Boost might seem significant, it really is not. I have contributed a small fraction of what some of the people who participated in this review have. But all of us are here because we are invested in Boost and want it to succeed more than it has already. And I hope that the decision above will help Boost do just that. Sincerely, Glen

1 0