Peter Dimov via Boost
I have a novel idea, let's drop C++03 support.
I think it's a great idea. I would also be in favor of bumping the major version to 2 and potentially dropping unmaintained/obsolete libraries though I also appreciate that this is a more drastic change that may sink the whole idea. Also, one benefit of 2.0.0 that I believe was not mentioned is outside perception. If it's 1.83.0 then I don't think it will be easy to convince the wider audience that it's anything other than the "same old" Boost even if there are drastic changes like dropping of unmaintained/obsolete libraries or better modularity. (And if anyone here wonders, the perception in the wider audience is not very good, at least IME).
Boost release 1.83.0 is announced to require C++11 at minimum. This means compilers that have all the C++11 standard headers, and support all the C++11 syntactic constructs and keywords without issuing errors. (E.g. VS2013 doesn't qualify because it doesn't support the `constexpr` or `noexcept` keywords.)
IME, this is an unreliable criterion. For example, based on this MSVC 14.3 (VS2015) would be a fair game but in practice its constexpr support is so buggy/incomplete that it's pretty much unusable. I believe a better approach would be to name the minimum supported versions for the main three C++ compilers (GCC, Clang, and MSVC) which then determines the practically usable set of C++ features.