On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Jon Kalb via Boost
The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact
on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. [snip] I have great respect for the Boost.Build project and its developers. Boost has received incredible mileage from this powerful tool. Perhaps it is only a matter of fate that Boost.Build has not received the same level of adoption as CMake. However, as the author of a Boost library (pending merge), I find the Boost.Build requirement to be burdensome, even for a header-only library. I spent many afternoons studying and using Boost.Build, but I still do not have a solid grasp of it. My experience learning and using CMake was significantly less frustrating. As the author and maintainer of an internal distro project that builds and packages 30+ open source projects, I find the build process for Boost to be cumbersome and peculiar. I strongly support the effort to steer Boost development and usage toward CMake. Ultimately, I believe this is a healthy move for our community. Additionally, I think the creation of a dedicated mailing list would be useful for those interested in contributing to this effort. This won't happen without focused collaboration. Barrett Adair