- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[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

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

11 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 1

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

Shared memory path to custom path
by Murali Kishore 08 Nov '24

08 Nov '24

Hi all, Is it possible to change the shared memory segment path from /dev/shm to other directory ex. /tmp/shm_file instead of /dev/shm/shm_file. Regards, Murali Kishore

3 4

[release] Boost 1.87.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate is available
by Marshall Clow 08 Nov '24

08 Nov '24

Available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.87.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 26f987635320854a141a8c9c3750eb6f01edb6eb75df9454726c4a03724b2472 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3712ead87a26ae5b8ee7dcf0c180e4c27f58e50bd32f14d77e8e04bf6a13ae51 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.zip e6b047e06369392241f8574a5cc1b6aa493819aa498276654477e3a08bc94167 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.7z deff255d96e11760f728f5f90785b138fff93f6c9a3ab24664710211a41614ad boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 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

4 6

[Release] Master branch is now closed for the beta release
by Marshall Clow 07 Nov '24

07 Nov '24

Master is closed for all changes. See the release schedule at: https://www.boost.org/development/index.html -- Release managers

1 0

Pretty printer module
by Дмитрий Архипов 06 Nov '24

06 Nov '24

Recently Niall Douglas posted about his idea to embed GDB pretty printers into binaries using a header. At the time I was thinking about a good way to deploy pretty printers for JSON that facilitates their autoloading. After Niall's post I experimented a little bit more, and I came to the conclusion that indeed nothing beats embedding via a C++ header in terms of convenience. At the same time I was also thinking about testing that pretty printers do in fact work. Given that pretty printers (usually) are implemented as a Python module, it initially looked like one could just run a Python program and import GDB Python modules. But actually you cannot. It turns out, though, you can run a Python script with GDB as the interpreter. After several iterations I arrived at this setup: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/test/printers.cpp. A script converts this file into a Python script that uses GDB to break on certain lines and check if a particular expression produces a particular output when printed. While doing all this I thought that most of this work can be useful to other libraries. So, I moved the reusable parts into a separate directory (https://github.com/boostorg/json/tree/develop/pretty_printers) and added both a b2 module, and a CMake module. For B2. Importing: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/build.jam#L8-L9 https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/build/Jamfile#L13 (Re)generating the header: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/build/Jamfile#L88-L95 Testing: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/test/Jamfile#L96-L101 For CMake: Importing: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/CMakeLists.txt#L54-L55 (Re)generating the header: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/CMakeLists.txt#L56-L63 Testing: https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/test/CMakeLists.txt#L80-L88 My questions to the community: do you find this useful? Would you use it in your Boost or non-Boost library? If you do, the module should be moved to tools rather than stay in libs/json.

12 24