On 12/17/18 1:52 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
Hi everyone, hi Robert,
I've been informed[1] that the latest effort to call for CMake submissions and then review them collectively in February has stalled or failed. Is this true? Yes - stalled - not (yet) failed
What is the status of this effort, and if it's still on track, what is the current schedule?
currently there is no schedule
I'm asking because there is an ongoing effort by Mike-Devel (sorry, don't know your full name) to add minimalistic support for CMake across a number of Boost libraries, including those I maintain, and I've been holding off his submissions until after the review according to Robert's plan. If that plan is no longer in force, I might as well accept Mike's PRs and we (Boost as a whole) might as well accept his solution as the only one we have close to implementation.
Right. There have been several proposals/offers/suggestions of this nature. The focus of my effort was to develop a consensus as to which of these efforts we should select, support, and push through to completion. To this end, I posted a draft of a "call for proposals". I received some feedback on the draft and made some changes. The changes were mostly wording. But I also dropped the idea of requiring anonymity by submitters and offering a cash prize for the completion of the task. (I still up for awarding a cheap medal to the winner of the "competition"). In the timeframe specified for reception of feedback, I failed to get any feed back from any members of the steering committee. I also had requested feedback from the Boost review wizard for support of my intention to extend the review process to a) review proposals for expansion boost tooling as well as for libraries. b) permit multiple proposals to be reviewed simultaneously rather than one at a time as is the boost practice. and haven't received any response either. Eventually after some badgering I did get some response from David Sankel and from Jon Kalb. David was sort of encouraging but Jon had a lot of objections even after removing the specific complaints described above. All in all, I felt I didn't have enough support from the powers that be to continue with this. The worst thing for me is to commit to a very time consuming effort on my part and be left hanging on the vine. It would be particularly disheartening in this case where this is the only substantive response to the the original call by the steering to support CMake for boost. So until I get an affirmative statement of support from the steering committee, I don't feel I can continue on. My personal opinion is that it is essential that Boost agrees on a way to help CMake users use boost to best advantage. Essential is not hyperbole, I mean that literally. I do not believe that boost can avoid terminal atrophy without making progress in this direction. Robert Ramey
[1] https://github.com/boostorg/winapi/pull/73#issuecomment-447760554
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost