On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Robert Ramey
Take a look at the CMake history. There was a huge effort undertaken from the top to switch to CMake for build / test. It was a failure because it tried to do it from the top down. I'm thinking that the promoters of this idea concluded that the problem wasn't ambitious enough and added deployment to the task and built rypll. This had as key collaborators our most capable and hard core developers - including David Abrahams and Eric Neibler. Huge amount of expended effort but not much came out of it.
This is a false account of what happened. CMake was dropped because the modularization to git was considered a worthwhile thing to do first. After the so-called top-down transition to git (which was good for C++, but bad for insiders), the steering committee somehow came to the conclusion that their job wasn't to steer. After last week's future of boost session (or lack-of rather), my understanding is that this is being revisited. Boost cannot evolve the way it has in the past. When it was getting started, we didn't have over-representation of groups who benefit from the status-quo. We didn't have the idea of servicing the "Boost community" instead of the "C++ community". Either the steering committee will step up to protect the original vision of Boost, or the vision of Boost will change to serve the insiders. This means life or death for boost and, frankly, it's been dying over the past few years. Help me Obi Wan Kanobi you're my only hope. -- David Sankel