I think that instead of formal disclaimer, we can adopt some kind of rating for the stability/matureness of each library. Something like "new" / "mature" / "stable"?
actually as "disclaimer" in the introduction of the library is probably just fine. My concern is that I felt, that some developer's (not just boost) don't appreciate thier libraries are to other people and underestimate the impact and inconvenience that these changes cause. Just puting in such a disclaimer is probably enough to remind the developer to ask himself - "wait a minute - if I do that won't and old program fail in a silent way". And of course these kinds of discussions sometimes make an impression. Robert Ramey
One of the stated purposes of Boost is as a test bed for libraries before they are considered for standardization. So I don't think that the disclaimer says anything new.
I suppose that's true. But for me, boost is the source of well documented and tested code that I can count on to "just work". This is key to me - that is the source of my perspective. Robert Ramey