On 24.02.2018 17:32, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 2/24/18 2:17 PM, Mike via Boost wrote:
I don't believe in conspiracies. But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on the ml after the steering committee made their announcement that I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the library itself.
and your suggestion is ... ?
The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing happened. This is something.
I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, for example here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter10.html). Perhaps that helps to illustrate what's going on. It seems quite clear from my POV. :-) As I said in another reply: it's important to be clear about what the review should be about, and it would be very wrong to interpret the review as an endorsement to be used *by every boost project*. But the problem of such an endeavour is not with any particular tool, it's the task itself that's fundamentally flawed (or even impossible). What I find stunning isn't that "nothing happened", it's that no-one has tried to even consider alternative approaches, such as ones that give more autonomy to individual projects. Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...