On 20 May 2016 at 17:14, Stefan Seefeld
On 20.05.2016 11:55, Peter Dimov wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
So my counter-proposal (which I have repeatedly voiced over past years) would be to let Boost evolve into an *umbrella organization* with a relatively high degree of autonomy for *member projects* to decide for their own on things like what infrastructure tools to use (to build, test, document, to track issues and feature requests, etc.), so long as certain quality standards are maintained.
And what will this umbrella organization actually *do*?
* provide general guidelines (just as now, but relaxed) * provide infrastructure * provide administrative, financial, and perhaps legal support * do reviews to accept new member projects
Sounds fine to me.
Please note that there is one important condition that such independence would build upon: A discipline of ABI- and API-compatibility between releases, that allows downstream project B to depend on upstream project A while keeping its own release cycle. Note that, while likely being the most difficult aspect of this proposal, it's something that we have been discussing for a long time, and which would be good engineering practice anyhow, and would benefit every single user, and thus is worth striving for.
I think that's worthwhile, and not too onerous for established libraries. Could be a little more flexible for new libraries.