- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

A history of the Boost Foundation
by Zach Laine 11 Sep '24

11 Sep '24

Dave Abrahams and Beman Dawes put up the initial money for BoostCon (which has since been renamed to C++Now) in 2007 (or maybe 2006?). This was something of a risk, since it was not certain how many people would show up. It turns out that the conference covered those costs, but they were still personally responsible for the conference if they wanted to put it on again the next year, or the year after. Beman had the idea that there should be an independent legal entity for this, rather than two individual people. I forget the exact chronology, but pretty early on in the conference history, we ended up with The Boost Steering Committee, under the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC). That is, we called it "The Boost Steering Committee", but there was no such legal entity. The legal entity that represented the BoostCon conference and Boost in general was SFC. In terms of legal entities, "The Boost Project", or "The Boost Steering Committee" was just a single division within SFC. This is something they reminded us of from time to time. At the time, Boost had no real expenses. The "wowbagger" server that we use to host the (now, legacy) website, and on which the releases are built, was hosted at Indiana University. The downloads of the build Boost releases were hosted at Sourceforge (I think; anyway, wherever it was, it was free). They later moved to other places, ending up finally at JFrog. They're no longer hosted for free -- see below. BoostCon made more money than it spent for a lot of years. It accumulated some reserves, and people would sometimes ruminate on what we might spend all that sweet, sweet cash on. No large expenditures were ever taken on though. The SFC started very small. We were project #3 I think (maybe #2? something like that). Over a few years, it took on more and more projects, until Boost was one of 20 or 25 SFC projects (again, I don't remember the exact numbers). SFC had a small staff then, and probably still does. As they grew, it became increasingly difficult to get anything done. They were overworked and understaffed, so this is not some failure on the part of the SFC so much as a logistical inevitability. One problem we had was getting them to pay vendors for services used by the conference. IOW, we would use some service, the vendor would send us a bill, and then we would send SFC like a thousand emails trying to get them to pay the bill. It was a nightmare to deal with. Jon Kalb, who was the conference chair at the time, asked the Steering Committee if we'd be open to breaking free of SFC, and forming our own non-profit organization -- a separate legal entity. Everyone agreed, Jon did a bunch of research and paperwork (thanks again, Jon!) and we formed a new 501(c)(3) US corporation called The Boost Foundation. This is why the Steering-Committee-under-SFC became the Boost Foundation Board. This is also why the name changed -- we needed a new name for the new legal entity. There was no secret agenda; there was no smoke-filled room. There was, however, pragmatism. Sometime around then -- once more, I don't remember the exact timeline -- we started losing all our free stuff. Someone at Indiana University realized that randos (that's us, Boost) were running a whole server in their lab, and asked us to remove it. So then we had to pay for hosting wowbagger. Some time later, the download hosts stopped giving away bandwidth for free as well. No problem, right? The conference makes money, Boost now needs money, so let's use the conference money for the Boost expenses that now have to be paid. (Note that this is something the SC/Board took on as it came up; it was not part of the original mission of the SC/Board, because there were no significant Boost infrastructure expenses previously.) The problem is that the conference makes less and less every year, due to a combination of changes in the way the venue charges (it all went up a lot), inflation, the expenses from the covid-cancelled year, etc. During all this, we kept things running as best we could. Eventually, the downloads became too expensive, and the C++ Alliance offered to pay for those. So now they do. The Foundation only pays for hosting wowbagger right now. Hopefully that sets the stage. To me, the important take-away is that the Foundation has tried to "keep the lights on" as I like to say, without bothering anyone on the list about it. The Board does more than just Boost infrastructure stuff, such as organizing the C++Now conference, and more recently, paying the hosting fees for the Beman Discourse server. Sorry this is so long. :) I may have some of these facts slightly wrong. Like, did BoostCon actually start in 2006? I couldn't figure out definitively which year it was, even though I was there. But I'm much more certain about the major events, and the reasons for things. I also left out most of the non-asset-stewardship aspects of the Steering Committee/Foundation, since they are mostly not germane to the current review. I nevertheless refer to one such aspect below. In light of the history above, here are some points I'd like to make regarding things I've seen said on this list about the Foundation: 1) The Board does not impose its will on the developers on this list. It does sometimes make recommendations or official "calls" of some kind, like saying we should use CMake. It doesn't actually have the ability, as the Boost Foundation Board, to enact such changes. This is not a matter of restraint. It simply can't make concrete changes; only the Boost developers can. Also, there never has been, and doesn't appear to me that there ever will be, any appetite for meddling in Boost development, or forcing developers to do things. 2) The Board is self-selected, in the sense that the Board nominates and votes on Board seats. Multiple Boost authors are on the Board: Peter Dimov, Glen Fernades, Jeff Garland, and me. There are others who are only there for the conference business. There are others, who joined more recently, interested only in Beman. 3) I've read on this list about the desire to "get back" to the Boost Steering Committee way of doing things. This does not make sense. There is no difference between the Boost Steering Committee and the Boost Foundation, except for the name. Sure, there is a change in membership over time. That would have happened with or without the name change. Perhaps this is a desire not to have the current Board membership? If so, please get involved. Asking a volunteer project to do things differently, without volunteering to help yourself, doesn't usually work out. Which brings me to: 4) The Board is a volunteer project, like Boost is. As such, people work mostly on what they care about, and don't really do much for things they don't care about. So when I read, "The Board is not communicating enough," I think there are a couple of things to consider. 4a) Do we expect volunteers to do the stuff they want to work on, and then communicate that they did that to someone else that was not working on that same thing? Do we do that with our Boost libraries? I might communicate changes, including bug fixes, in release notes. I do this because it affects others. But if I make a non-functional change, who do I tell, and why? Note that, when there has been a loss of service, someone has mentioned it on the list right away, as far as I know. Do we also want people to mention when the Board took some action that kept a loss of service from happening? Moreover, I'm not sure what transparency is lacking, given that: 4b) The board publishes minutes of every meeting, and you can come to the meetings if you're interested. Except for occasionally needing to handle a sensitive topic that we do not minute due to its sensitivity, these are not closed meetings. For example, our latest Board member was asked to join the Board because he kept showing up to these open meetings out of his own interest, and would take on tasks from time to time. As you all know, this is how pretty much all open source/volunteer projects work. In short, I think if a Boost user wants to know the details of how Boost works, they subscribe to the Boost mailing list. If a Boost developer wants to know the details of how the Boost Foundation works, they read the minutes and/or come to the meetings. Zach

5 6

Re: [boost] A history of the Boost Foundation
by Zach Laine 11 Sep '24

11 Sep '24

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:41 PM Vladimir Prus <vladimir.prus(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > 1) The Board does not impose its will on the developers on this list. >> > > It does sometimes make recommendations or official "calls" of some >> > > kind, like saying we should use CMake >> > > >> > >> > So the email about cutting ties with the C++ Alliance, which started all >> > this, was just non-binding minority report? >> >> I don't get it. Isn't this the thing the developers are voting on >> right now? How is the Board imposing a change on the developers? > > > The original email had no proposal of a vote. Nor did it sound like a recommendation. Right. But again, where was the impact on the Boost developers? I, as a Boost developer was not expected to, nor asked to, do anything differently from what I had done before. This vote was all about the Board not wanting to deal with the Alliance. We think that there would be an adverse impact on the Bosot developers, and think, "screw the developers!" If we expected our decision to adversely affect Boost development, we would have made a different one. Zach

2 2

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Matt
by Matt Borland 11 Sep '24

11 Sep '24

DISCLAIMER: I am a C++Alliance Employee Prior to my employment by the C++Alliance I had been a contributor to Boost for a few years primarily in the Math domain. I enjoyed working with everyone, so when an opportunity to join the C++Alliance came around I took it. I agree with the foundation that the core of Boost is volunteers, but by adding a number of part time and full time employees we are able to handle much larger projects and sustained maintenance that may just be otherwise unfeasible. I don't think, for example, GCC would be better off without RedHat employees working on it because many people depend on it just like many people depend on Boost. I like that the C++Alliance is heavily invested in the future of Boost and it's infrastructure. Drone is fast and has a diversity of architectures that aren't available in Github Actions. We've been adding CUDA support to Boost.Math and a testing environment for that was happily provided since there is a heavy demand signal from our users. The new website is a pretty clear improvement over the current one. We also have Sam Darwin who is already helping the distribution of Boost happen behind the scenes. I see no reason to not want to work with an organization that literally puts their money where their mouth is. The fiscal sponsorship model and the new steering committee are the right choice for the future. The fiscal sponsorship model is not new and worked for Boost in the past. The three (possibly five) members of the initial steering committee all have public and sustained interactions with the Boost community. I trust they have the best interests of the project in mind since they have skin in the game. I would like to echo what Chris said in his review. Tensions have obviously been high over the past weeks and months between some rather large personalities. Once this referendum is complete I hope that we can have a peaceful transfer of power and return to a more cordial environment with a focus on how we can make Boost better moving forward. Bottom Line: I vote ACCEPT for the C++Alliance's Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal Matt

2 1

[Asset Stewardship] A request for clarification
by Andrzej Krzemienski 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

Hi All, I have a couple of questions to the C++ Alliance representatives regarding the Fiscal Sponsorship Proposal. First, the proposal is very clear and informative. Thank you for this. I still have some questions, though. In Appendix 1: Paragraph 2.c says, "all community programs [...] shall be the ultimate responsibility of Alliance. What is meant by "community programs" here? Paragraph 3 says "should Alliance be required to pay any taxes [...]". What taxes do you mean here? Can you give an example? Paragraph 3 also uses the term, "Project agrees". Is this a mistake, or intentional? I understand that the Current Committee can agree to something. Or that the Steering Committee can agree to something. But how can the Project agree? Additional two questions. 1. When I am a maintainer of a library, what does it make me in the light of this agreement? Am I part of the Project? Or a donor to the Project? Or something else? 2. I have a problem internalizing who decides and signs-off on the complement of the Current Committee. Don't get me wrong. I personally support the proposed complement (including the proposed amendments); I just wonder how it works logically/legally. The Current Committee cannot appoint itself. The Alliance cannot arbitrarily say "you, you, and you". Is this Boost Asset Stewardship Review a vehicle for the legitimization of the Current Committee? Paragraph 8.d says, "If no Successor is found, Alliance may dispose of the Project assets and liabilities in any manner consistent with applicable tax and charitable trust laws." This sounds very harsh to me. If the Project faces the necessity to find another sponsor, and this fails, is the Alliance allowed to offer the domain name for sale, get rid of the mailing list archives, or offer the logo to someone else? Appendix 3 -- I do not see how it illustrates the boost.org Domain Registration Expiration Appendix 6 -- It is very nice promotional material. Thank you for doing this. But the term "the Official C++ Language Slack Workspace" draws my attention, and I have always wanted to ask this: what makes this slack workspace "official"? Neither Boost nor the C++ Alliance represents C++ or could make decisions or blessings in the name of C++. So, is it not a stretch? Regards, &rzej;

3 5

Boost Asset Stewardship Review - Some questions received
by Glen Fernandes 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

The following questions were sent to me about the assets that the C++ Alliance already manages. My replies are included: 1. What are these alternate domains, and how do they differ from boost.io ? These are domains that the C++ Alliance provided for us when we had that issue where boost.org was down for a long period of time. At the time I wasn't sure we would even get boost.org back or what the timeline for recovery would be. I thought that we should provide a backup domain that users can be directed to until the issue is resolved. The C++ Alliance offered to help and registered boostlibraries.org and boostcpp.org that point to our website hosting. boost.io is the domain for people to preview the new website that the C++ Alliance built, developed by Fastly with content contributions from Boost users and developers. 2. Why do we need to pay to support downloads if the hosting is free? The storage costs are minimal but the bandwidth is not. At one point Boost downloads approached 60TB per month and Bintray couldn't afford to support us for free. JFrog generously offered to take over. Recently, our downloads started approaching almost 200TB per month, and now even JFrog couldn't afford to keep hosting us for free. They suggested we use a CDN to reduce traffic costs. I reached out to multiple providers to get a good deal. The best rate was from Fastly but this was also too expensive. The C++ Alliance offered to handle these costs and we subscribed to Fastly. Sam Darwin administers our Fastly account. For the list discussion, you can start at: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/01/255654.php Glen

4 4

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Andrzej Krzemienski 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

śr., 26 kwi 2023 o 16:08 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> napisał(a): > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > Every message comes as a separate email to me. > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? Gmail groups all the emails from the topic as an email thread. > If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What does "flat" mean here? I am not familiar with Discourse. Could we get a sample or example? Regards, &rzej; What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost >

5 7

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Jakob
by Jakob Lövhall 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

I’m not affiliated with either the C++ Alliance or the Boost Foundation. I’m merely a boost user and sends occasional patches as contribution. The regulatory parts of the proposals are naturally US specific, and I want to make it clear that I do not understand the nuances of those parts. This is my short review. Boost Foundation: The bullet points and values stated in the proposal from the Boost Foundation seems strange to me and does not align with what I have been able to discern from public discourse. I haven't seen the transparency that’s being discussed. Engagement to provide said transparency seems lacking from the Boost Foundation. The emphasis on inclusivity over merit feels like a pathway to decline, as it explicitly excludes other groups beyond the intended inclusivity targets. This seems harmful to Boost and its community and should be avoided. The Boost foundation highlights code of conduct (and policing the discussion) as important going forward. I think it can be damaging, and should thus be avoided. Additionally, the Boost Foundation has not adequately addressed the infrastructure needs of Boost. In contrast, the C++ Alliance has stepped in to handle these concerns. C++ Alliance: Vinnie and others from the C++ Alliance have been actively engaging with the community on Slack and the mailing list—my two main points of contact. This provides transparency, builds relationships, and fosters discussions around technical issues, all of which are beneficial. The C++ Alliance has provided much-needed infrastructure assistance, particularly in cases where the Boost Foundation has failed to address long-standing issues (e.g., wowbagger). They support the maintenance (and at times creation) of libraries which I find useful. They promote on twitter, which I like, I've found good tools and libraries from twitter before and I expect others to also do so. having Boost on twitter therefore helps reaching those who might not have thought about boost when thinking about how to solve their current (C++) problems. The C++ Alliance focuses on merit over identity, which I believe is the right approach. Conclusion: I vote to ACCEPT C++ alliance proposal.

2 1

Regression Test Crashing
by Tom Kent 09 Sep '24

09 Sep '24

All- I've been pretty busy lately so just noticed this, but as of August 18 *all* the regression runs have broken during execution. The tail of the results log shows: - cxx11_char16_t : yes [47] - cxx11_char32_t : yes [47] - windows-sdk-supports-bcrypt : no [14] - windows-sdk-supports-bcrypt : no [51] error: Unable to find file or target named error: '/mnt/fs1/teeks99-06/run/boost_root/libs/charconv/build//stage' error: referred to from project at error: '../tools/check_build/test' Similar on windows: - cxx11_char32_t : yes [62] - windows-sdk-supports-bcrypt : yes [21] error: Unable to find file or target named error: '/C:/teeks99-09/run/boost_root/libs/charconv/build//stage' error: referred to from project at error: '../tools/check_build/test' Tom

4 8

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Frank Wiles
by Glen Fernandes 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

Frank contributed the following review below, sent to me directly. > Vote: Transfer Boost Assets to the C++ Alliance > > Association with library: Occasional user. Long time OSS contributor > in other areas. Was paid to help C++ Alliance build the new boost.io > > Rationale: > > While my association with Boost is not large, I have seen first hand > the care the C++ Alliance has taken to both "do the right thing" and > drive for consensus with the Boost community. > > As someone who has been deeply involved in other software nonprofits > (Django Software Foundation directly, Python Software Foundation > tangentially) this proposal is certainly well thought out and > detailed. Most importantly it covers "end state" cases in the event > the Steering Council or C++ Alliance want to change or end the > relationship in the coming years. > > It seems clear to me that the C++ Alliance is driving the majority of > air in terms of breathing new life into Boost and the assets can > safely be within their control, if for no other reason than to reduce > friction in continuing to push things forward. > > -- > Frank Wiles > President/Founder of REVSYS > www.revsys.com > @fwiles Frank, thank you again for the review. Glen

1 0

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Ali Asadpoor
by Glen Fernandes 07 Sep '24

07 Sep '24

Ali, thank you for the review. Everyone, Ali contributed the following review to glenfe -at- boost.org reposted verbatim here: On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 8:49 PM Ali Asadpoor wrote: > > Dear Glen, > > Hear is my review of the proposal doc: > > *** > Currently I don't see a bright future for boost library. Soon STL > will offer networking and later it might offer alternatives to other > awesome libraries in the boost. Seems STL is slowly catching up with > boost and it's killing it. > I was happy to read that The C++ Alliance might provide boost with > a second chance to glow again. Boost needs more human power to > process input from community faster and I think The C++ Alliance can > improve this aspect. > *** > > Best regards > Ali

2 1

Re: [boost] Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03 (Updated)
by Glen Fernandes 07 Sep '24

07 Sep '24

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:44 PM Ion Gaztañaga wrote: > A: Yes, I think C++ Alliance’s proposal should be accepted, with a few > suggestions: Ion, a great many thanks for your review and the sentiments expressed within. Everyone, Ion's review didn't make it to the developer list because of an error in the address. I will ask him to repost it when he can tomorrow morning. Glen

1 0

Asset Stewardship Review
by M P 07 Sep '24

07 Sep '24

Here is my review of the proposed Boost.AssetStewardsipReview ## What is your evaluation of the design? The C++ Alliance has laid out a solid plan for boosting Boost, covering everything from revamping the website to improving integration, documentation, and library support. They’ve clearly identified the main issues and have offered practical, detailed solutions. They’re big on involving the Boost community and stakeholders, encouraging feedback and participation, and valuing everyone’s input. The Alliance is upfront about potential challenges like delays and costs, but they address these issues realistically. They’re not just offering quick fixes but are investing in new tools and dedicated staff for long-term support. On the flip side, the Boost Foundation’s concerns about the Alliance’s transparency and use of paid contributions might come across as overly critical. Sticking to slow decision-making and rigid governance could be seen as a barrier to innovation. Their focus on a purely volunteer-based setup might limit growth, and their critique of gender representation doesn't offer clear solutions. Some of their proposals, like improving mailing list behavior and adopting new tools, are a bit vague and might not be enough to attract fresh contributors or more dynamic approaches. ## What is your evaluation of the implementation? The implementation outlined in the text is well-organized and covers all the essential bases for Boost's long-term success. The C++ Alliance has already proven its value by setting up crucial infrastructure, like continuous integration and IT support, and by contributing to various libraries. The new Boost website is fantastic! Its modern design and user-friendly layout make it easy to navigate and find what you're looking for. With its fresh look and improved functionality, it's sure to catch the eye of new users and make their first experience with Boost a great one. Whether you're a seasoned developer or just getting started, the site’s clean interface and accessible resources are a huge plus. Their plan to revamp Boost’s brand and enhance its visibility is forward-thinking and aligns with what the community needs. The proposal to have the Alliance take on fiscal sponsorship aims to streamline operations and ensure financial stability. One thing to keep in mind is that the Alliance proposal comes with a legal agreement where a Steering Committee, made up entirely of Boost authors, gets to make decisions about the shared resources. If they're not happy with how things are going, they have the power to move those resources elsewhere. This kind of setup isn't mentioned in the Foundation proposal. So, while the idea of the Alliance handling fiscal sponsorship could definitely streamline operations and boost financial stability, how it plays out will depend on how well the Alliance and Boost community work together. ## What is your evaluation of the documentation? The C++ Alliance proposal is easy to follow and straightforward, clearly showcasing its contributions to Boost and laying out plans for future growth. It does a great job of explaining the benefits of the proposed governance changes and shows a real commitment to being open, sustainable, and collaborative. ## How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I have dedicated considerable time to studying the proposals and related documents, and I have been aware of the ongoing conflict for some time. ## Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? To some extent. With Boost's popularity declining in recent years, it's at a critical crossroads, and its future success may very well hinge on this decision. ## Do you think the C++ Alliance proposal should be accepted? Yes Miguel Portilla

2 1

Asset Stewardship Review
by Christian Mazakas 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Disclaimer: Alliance employee Hi, I'm a little confused at what the Boost Foundation put forth. The opening review email states: > To be clear, the review is not about deciding governance over Boost > C++ library development. That remains in the hands of the Boost > developer community. But TBF's proposal seems entirely to be governance-related. In terms of asset stewardship, it's kind of a no-brainer to choose the organization that _didn't_ almost lose the boost.org domain name. Plus, the Alliance has Sam Darwin and he's infallible. But to the Boost Foundation's credit, I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points being mentioned. Boost _should_ consider introducing a formal CoC. Boost _should_ officially migrate to CMake and being direct here: this does mean completely abandoning b2. We need to revitalize Boost with the youth culture and to the youth, these things matter quite a bit. - Christian

9 20

Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Nick Thomson
by Glen Fernandes 06 Sep '24

06 Sep '24

Nick sent the following review to me at glenfe -at- boost.org. > From: Nick Thompson > Date: On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 18:26 > Subject: Fw: Boost Asset Stewardship Review > To: Glen Fernandes > > Vote: Transfer Boost Assets to the C++ Alliance > > Association with library: Contributor to math, multiprecision, > integer, random, and circular_buffer. Main contributions include > black box optimization, quadrature, and statistics in Boost.Math. > > Rationale: > > My contributions to Boost have mainly been implementation of > numerical algorithms. With each of these additions, years of future > maintenance work is implied. Even with the heroic efforts of John > Maddock, without the financial support of the C++ Alliance, these > libraries would accumulate so many open tickets that our reputation > would be badly damaged. Moreover, the utility of these libraries > would be greatly reduced. For example, there would be no way we could > support scipy's effort to expose Boost.Math to python-probably one of > the most impactful uses of Boost to date. The risk of the project > becoming completely defunk or slowly drifting into irrelevance > without continued financial support is extremely high. So as long as > the C++ Alliance is funding the maintenance, they should have the > most say in the continued operation of the library. > > Nick Thompson Nick, thank you for contributing a review. - Glen

2 1

Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03
by Glen Fernandes 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Everyone, The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST). A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list. The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation. Thank you, - Glen

5 8

[iostreams] Custom allocator support for compression filters
by Daniel Boehme 04 Sep '24

04 Sep '24

Hello everyone, I'm currently looking into custom allocators with the boost::iostreams::gzip_compressor and now need some help understanding why the code is the way it is. My problem is that I need to control how zlib internally de-/allocates memory. It seems to have support for using custom de-/allocation functions. And iostreams seems to have used it some time ago. However, passing the custom allocator to zlib has been disabled in this commit: https://github.com/boostorg/iostreams/commit/95baf782098f0dee00cc7ca6f62b9b… Does anyone happen to know what has been non-conforming and why it was disabled? I could not find any information about that in the code, on the mailing lists, or anywhere else in the internet. I'm tempted to submit a patch that enables it, but for that I need to understand the reasons behind that deliberate decision. Any hint is welcome. Thank you very much. Daniel B?hme

2 1

[boost.cobalt] Cobalt not building with b2 on Windows
by Andreas Weis 02 Sep '24

02 Sep '24

Hi everyone, It's my understanding that Cobalt is *not* a header-only library, yet it seems that it is not built as part of the b2 build. I'm building Boost with b2 on Windows (MSVC 2022, version 19.41) and it seems that Cobalt is not being built properly. I am using the following command line: b2 --toolset=msvc-14.3 --build-type=complete architecture=x86 address-model=64 --stagedir=stage -j 8 As far as I can tell, this works correctly for all libraries except Cobalt. While b2 does list cobalt as part of the "Component configuration" listing in the output: - atomic : building - charconv : building - chrono : building - cobalt : building [...] But I get neither binaries nor a folder cmake/boost_cobalt* with this. It also seems that the Cobalt binaries are not part of the distribution at https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-binaries/. Am I doing something wrong? Is Cobalt supposed to be part of the b2 build or is there another way to consume the non-header-only parts of the library? Best regards, Andreas

3 3

Boost.Compute broken in 1.86.0 because of UUID changes, 1.86.1?
by Peter Dimov 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Because Boost.Compute (boost/compute/detail/sha1.hpp) uses an implementation detail of Boost.UUID (boost/uuid/detail/sha1.hpp), and because I changed the implementation to fix an endianness issue, <boost/compute.hpp> now causes a compile error in 1.86.0, as reported in https://github.com/boostorg/uuid/issues/166 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/888 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/issues/889 Users are demanding we issue a point release to fix this. It will have to include https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 and https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/893 What do release managers think?

10 14

Inter pod communication using shared memory
by Murali Bathina 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Hi all, Is Boost supports inter pod communication using shared memory or other ways like boost interprocess communication. Looking inputs on this. Regards, Murali ________________________________ This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any review, use or distribution of this information is absolutely prohibited and we request that you delete all copies in your control and contact us by e-mailing to security(a)mavenir.com. This message contains the views of its author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates, who employ systems to monitor email messages, but make no representation that such messages are authorized, secure, uncompromised, or free from computer viruses, malware, or other defects. Thank You

4 6

glibc version mismatches in CI
by Jeff Trull 28 Aug '24

28 Aug '24

Hi folks, While reviewing the Modular Boost changes for Wave I noticed that our CI is now failing - and we're not alone in this. It looks like the version of glibc in some of the old Ubuntu containers, which are required to compile against old versions of gcc, is incompatible with the Node executable that runs actions/checkout@v2 (and 3 and 4). You might see errors like this: /__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.28' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node) The Github blog discusses the change here <https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-ru…> At least one brave pioneer, Andrey Semashev, has made updates to make CI green again in a handful of libraries, but I haven't seen it discussed on the list. Is there a fix other than "rewrite using manual checkout"? I managed to implement the workaround described in the blog post by adding these lines close to the top of ci.yml: env: ACTIONS_ALLOW_USE_UNSECURE_NODE_VERSION: true Though it seems unwise to rely on in the long run. Best, Jeff

5 5

Governance review
by David Sankel 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

The Boost Foundation approved the following motion relating to using the library review process for the governance/fiscal entity decision with 8 in favor and 0 against. MOTION: Support handling the governance question with the following process recommendations: - There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals. - These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers? How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++ communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?” - Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway. - The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed, how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place. - For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated. - All proposals should be reviewed during the same period. - The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. - The review period should be 20 days. - We want this to be a civil discussion and encourage everyone to make this a reality. Presume that others in the discussion are acting in good faith. -- David

6 7

Request for information regarding the Boost Foundation
by Robert Ramey 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

checking the Boost Foundation website I find some information such as https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/contact which lists the board of directors. Is there more complete information such as: a) link to legal documents such as articles of incorporation, 501(c)3 non-profit paperwork etc? b) Bylaws which among other things would describe the procedure for selection of members of the board, listing what the powers of the board are, etc. c) financial statements for recent years d) List of financial oblications that the foundation has committed to e) any other useful stuff Robert Ramey

3 2

Getting Started with Modular Boost Library Maintenance
by Alain O' Miniussi 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

Hi At the bottom of "https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Getting-Started%3A-Overview" (why the 2 "wiki"?) there is a "Getting Started with Modular Boost Library Maintenance" link pointing to missing https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/StartModMaint. Where is the page gone ? Thanks ---- Alain Miniussi DSI, Pôles Calcul et Genie Log. Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur Tél. : +33609650665

2 2

Stewardship Review Request
by Vinnie Falco 21 Aug '24

21 Aug '24

Recently the Boost Foundation offered the community two choices of organizations for stewardship of Boost's shared resources: itself, and The C++ Alliance. The project needs a decision, in order that its future may be determined. The Formal Review Process is typically called upon to answer the question of whether a library should be accepted into the collection. I have proposed that we use the same process to determine the question of stewardship. It is not perfect, yet it is both familiar and enduring. Although there are two designated review wizards, one is unavailable and the other is traveling. And review wizards have never been called upon to oversee non-library reviews. Therefore, I would like to add a formal review to the calendar for the following days, inclusive: Monday August 19, to Wednesday, August 28 Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task: Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board. Thanks

18 41

Modular Boost building next steps.
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 19 Aug '24

19 Aug '24

After some weeks of testing and addressing review comments from authors I have now marked PRs for supporting modular building and use of 156 Boost libraries. There are 2 libraries (multiprecision and utility) that are not ready yet, as they depend on other PRs. After the testing and review I've also concluded that authors (and owners) can merge all ready PRs without waiting for the tool specific PRs. It turned out there were no dependency issues between them. Hence the process is now: * The 1.86 release happened!! * Authors further review and merge the ready PRs. * I fix any fallout from that. * I create subsequent PRs for the global B2 Boost build infrastructure to remove the old non-modular dead code. * I fix any fallout from that. * The 1.87 release happens. Thank you everyone for the help so far. In particular Peter Dimov and Andrey Semashev for the many early comments across various PRs that helped me work out the kinks of the draft PRs. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

2 2