On 10/22/18 11:45 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
OK... do we want CMake config files installed by 1.69 or not, then?
I'd like to know this as well. If so, I presume that we can consider the Boost/CMake issues resolved and we can just move on from this?
What issues do you think are resolved ? As far as I understand, the current endeavor is to auto-generate config files to make it easier to consume (individual) Boost libraries in CMake projects. That's entirely orthogonal to the question of whether and how Boost libraries switch to CMake.
So, as far as I'm concerned, your effort to agree on a Request For Proposals is still very much relevant.
The reason I ask is that working to implement something presumes that there's consensus on what should be implemented. I don't want to find myself in the position of committing serious effort to a task which has been eclipsed by events. Historically, Boost Tooling has been developed in just this way. Someone with access just implements something and drops on the rest of us. I think that this practice is one of the reasons that we've been frustrated with boost tooling in general. My proposal is/was an attempt to break this cycle by approaching from a different angle - inspired by Boosts success in other aspects - motivating the creating of quality C++ libraries. Robert Ramey
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost