David Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Sep 28 2008, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
I think one difference here may be that Joel already knows he has interface-breaking changes planned (if that's not actually the case, I apologize). Several libraries have had interface-breaking changes after acceptance, but AFAIK these were not anticipated at the time of the review. Yes, I do anticipate interface-breaking changes. The proto port (What we call V3) is special because it actually captures a lot of what I had in mind for the next revision. I also expect, as typical with a review, more changes that I haven't foreseen. The suggested "optional- laziness" and the new and improved switch_ syntax, are two such cases of high consideration. I thought it would make sense to addess all these in one step.
Again, let me reiterate, that despite all these changes, the design and implementation or V2 is still sound, and IMO, pretty much up to standards with Boost quality. It is still the solid basis for V3 with up to 95% of the interface intact and essentially unchanged design and structure.
In case *I* wasn't sufficiently clear about it, let me try to be painfully explicit: we may want to discuss whether it's good for Boost or its users if we release a new top-level library and then break its interface in the next release, three months later. I'm all for accepting some version of Phoenix, but I want to make sure that users' needs for -- and the public perception of -- Boost's stability are accounted for.
Agreed 100%. I wouldn't want to have a release that will be good for only a few months and break the interface in the next release. That's the last thing I would want to do. I value stability. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net