On 24.02.2018 17:25, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 2/23/18 3:53 PM, mike via Boost wrote:
Thank you both for the update and explanation. I hope you find a review manager soon. And I hope the lib doesn't get rejected just because some authors want to block transition to cmake altogether.
It will also ensure that everyone gets a say. Hopefully the employment of the review processes will result in general acceptance of the result/decision regardless of what it turns out to be.
As one of the more vocal opponents to the announced "move", allow me to comment. I think there is a real danger that two distinct questions get conflated: a) a technical review of infrastructure to build Boost libraries with CMake. b) whether and how individual library developers / maintainers can be mandated to use any particular tooling (be it to build, to document, to bug-track, etc., etc.) It's true, a successful completion of a) makes it more likely for the code to be accepted by the community. But neither should a positive review result in a mandatory use by all libraries, nor should a review be biased based on the perceived danger of having to migrate if the review is completed successfully. Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...