Re: [boost] Option 1: Alliance stewardship of Boost

On 07/08/2024 13:41, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 4:51 AM Boris Kolpackov via Boost wrote:

...

Niall Douglas via Boost writes:

...

I wouldn't remember it that way.

My memory is that Dave asked for the help of a select few in writing the tooling to do the conversion because the Boost community had proved singularly useless in taking a decision, and he was going to impose a decision as BDFL after a great deal of wailing and complaint about there being any change at all. He then rammed it through fairly unceremoniously giving people very little choice about it.

Hm, that's not how I remember it, and I was on the Steering Committee at the time.

There was a heated Future of Boost session at C++Now where Dave used some strong words to express his frustration with a few Boost developers holding hostage the modernization and thus the future of Boost (or something to this effect). However, it was the Committee that then voted in favor of switching to CMake (and, no, Dave was not on the Committee).

(FWIW, I abstained from that vote due to what I thought could be viewed as a conflict of interest: I would have voted against and at that time I was already working on build2, so it could have been viewed as me trying to undermine the competition. But, looking back, I should have voted anyway.)

Niall was referring to the svn->git conversion. And, I think, you are referring to the cmake work?

I was referring to the svn->git conversion. Apologies, I should have clarified I meant Dave Abrahams not David Sankel. Niall