On 9/14/18 1:56 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:

Hi Robert, all,

it's obvious that there is a wide range of opinions not only on CMake itself, but also (and in particular) on what it means for Boost to "support CMake". And while I'm happy to see that you are suggesting a "Request for Proposals" rather than a "solution", I still think the problem space is a bit ill-defined. Perhaps we need to talk a bit about requirements first, which proposals need to meet to be eligible. (For example, one requirement I'd insist on would be "the proposal must give project maintainers enough latitude to decide themselves whether to adopt the proposed solution", i.e. any monolithic solution would by design be excluded.)

And as long as we can't even come to some basic agreement as to how to move forward (not even involving technical aspects of any particular solution), I think it would be irresponsible to invite people to submit proposals.

Note: c) Prior to this discussions can be held on the list regarding the scope of such an effort. The review manager will distill these discussions to a statement of scope. This will be posted around 30 October 2018.

While I'm not a big fan of overly formal processes, I'm afraid that the effort people put into such proposals will just lead to frustration as things will stall again, eventually.

LOL - not if I'm running things. Robert Ramey

Sorry,

LOL - NP

Stefan

--

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 9/15/18 3:25 AM, mike via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:27 PM

b) Those who are willing and able to submit code/documentation and whatever else in necessary should do so before this date. I would anticipate at least two such submissions.

Just to be sure: You are not counting my batch of PRs as one of those submissions right?

LOL - I am. To be honest though I haven't even looked at them. To me merging in a batch of PRs related to CMake is a defacto proposal presupposing what CMake should be doing in the context of Boost and an implementation of same. Is there already some alternative proposal to BCM in the making? Paul Fultz made proposal about this time last year.

Other than that, thanks for suggesting concrete dates and I'm looking forward to the "scope" discussion.

I think this is very important. There's lots of things one could expect to use CMake for in the context of boost. Previous discussions seem to spend a lot of time sorting things out among participants who have diverse ideas about this. If we are going to request proposals, its much better to articulate what we hope to accomplish with this. And we can't reach some sort of consensus on this question, proposals won't be comparable. Also it's unfair to ask for proposals without specifying requirements. Right now, my goal is even more modest. Its it possible that we could get consensus on accepting the timeline and procedure I proposed - and with my being appointed to lead it? Robert Ramey

Best

Mike

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 9/27/18 11:23 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost

...

b) Those who are willing and able to submit code/documentation and whatever else in necessary should do so before this date. I would anticipate at least two such submissions. As is the case with other reviews, I would not exist such submissions to be totally complete. But I would expect that they include enough for reviewers to test and practice with the proposed system.

c) Prior to this discussions can be held on the list regarding the scope of such an effort. The review manager will distill these discussions to a statement of scope. This will be posted around 30 October 2018.

Correction - I meant 1 October. That is I will post my initial proposal for the scope definition around this date. The discussion of the scope can be hashed out on the list.

Not a lot of time till then, so here are my 2cents:

First of all, I don't think the whole thing is worth it if the goal isn't to completely replace b2 as a top level build system.

I'm not addressing this now. I'll leave it for the scope discussion. Everyone who want's to chime in will have their opportunity. So be prepared to post again later.

...

I nominate myself (Robert Ramey) as review manager in this instance.

You have my vote

LOL - so the current vote is 1 - 0

Best

Mike

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

On 9/28/18 4:20 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:36 PM

On 9/27/18 11:23 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost c) Prior to this discussions can be held on the list regarding the scope of such an effort. The review manager will distill these discussions to a statement of scope. This will be posted around 30 October 2018.

Correction - I meant 1 October. That is I will post my initial proposal for the scope definition around this date. The discussion of the scope can be hashed out on the list.

Ah ok, I understood your mail in such a way that you wanted to have the scope discussion finished by then (31.10) and that you would then post the "result". Sorry for chiming in prematurely.

LOL _ I've just whacked out from giving my presentation at CPP con. The original version is correct. That is Around 1 October I'll start out the scope discussion with an initial proposal for the scope. I expect this will reveal that there is a lot of disagreement on this. I the course of the next 30 days I'll gather opinions and by 30 October hope to develop a boost style consensus. That is a description which everyone can live with. And call for submissions. I hope to have the review of the submissions start around 1 February 2019. A reminder that this process will be a little different that the normal one for libraries. Traditionally, we've considered library submissions one at at time for an accept/reject decision. The problem here is that the acceptance of one stops the process. This is not a good match in this case. So we'll be considering the submissions simultaneously and comparatively. The general boost expectations will apply: that is, functionality, testability, documentation, final determination in the hands of the review manager. FYI - I am now aware of three persons who are seriously considered making such submissions. Given the fact that we're giving lots of time for persons to take their shot and that everyone is expert on build systems, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. Sorry for the mixup. Robert Ramey

Best

Mike

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost