Since you are making a variety of accusations.. On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Gary Furnish via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I've observed from the outside that basically no one was ever going to touch boost.build because the people who like it (who happen to be single points of failure for the entire boost ecosystem) basically out-shouted everyone whenever a technical discussion came up.
Prove it.
Its not like there haven't been concerns about boost.build for years.
All build systems, heck all software, has "concerns".
Its not like the documentation for boost.build wasn't basically "ask the mailing list or prey someone else has asked stack overflow" for years.
The documentation is bad compared to what other documentation?
Its not like every time a new version of MSVC beta comes out boost.build doesn't break and its not a priority because the maintainers of boost.build don't use MSVC.
Prove that it wasn't a priority. Considering that the last Boost release was delayed precisely to support MSVC building.
Its not like everyone submitting to boost doesn't complain about having to learn a non-standard build system that isn't documented richly enough to write scripts from scratch.
Again, prove it.
These are not new problems. I am *really* glad that SC did something because in my mind it means boost won't die a slow death to just posting independent libs on github.
Prove that the build system is the reason Boost is "dying a slow death"? For that matter prove that Boost is dying in the first place. Note.. Yes I will keep posting in these threads in response to false accusations to the decades of work some of us have put into Boost. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail