On 16/05/2014 1:10 PM, Niall Douglas wrote: [snip a large list of very good suggestions for going forward]
Thoughts?
All of this sounds really good, your statements about "vested interests" aside. I'm not one of them, but if I were, maybe I'd find it a little offensive. I'm sure everyone here wants to do a good job. Not because of politics or anything, but I would say that you do this independently of the usual Boost repo. Let there be a "C++03 Boost" and a "C++-latest-but-1 Boost". Share as little as possible. I say a big fat yes to CMake. I love the elegance of bjam but CMake + Ninja is ridiculous. CMake is elegant in its own way. And let's not give compiler vendors a pass by using their compiler as a baseline. Have a policy that says that we drop support for compilers that don't support (say) the penultimate standard. If the C++ standard is becoming more iterative, then the compilers need to be as well. So when C++17 is out, the library would support only C++14 with compiler workarounds only for C++14 and up. I would not bring over any existing libraries unless the authors wanted to do so themselves and if they are also going to sunset the old C++03 library. For this reason, I'd start with new libraries that are needed just for C++11 code. A lot of talk... But it needs buy in. Sohail