[C++-sig] New Major-Release Boost.Python Development
rwgrosse-kunstleve at lbl.gov
Fri Aug 26 01:26:52 CEST 2011
CC to Dave.
This is great news.
My main interests have been stability and not increasing the memory
footprint of boost.python extensions. I'm not in a position to further
Troy and Ravi have done a significant amount of work. I hope they will
comment for themselves.
I'd prefer if developments stayed under the boost umbrella, e.g. as
boost/python/v3, but I don't feel very strongly about this.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jim Bosch <talljimbo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to start work on a new major release of Boost.Python. While the
> library is currently well-maintained in terms of bugfixes, I get the sense
> that neither the original developers nor the current maintainer have the
> time or inclination to work on new features. I'd also like to propose some
> changes that are slightly backwards-incompatible, as well as some that mess
> with the internals to an extent that I'd feel better about doing it outside
> Boost itself, to make it easier for adventurous users to play with the new
> version without affecting people who depend on having an extremely stable
> library in Boost.
> To that end, I'm inclined to copy the library to somewhere else (possibly
> the boost sandbox, but more likely a separate site), work on it, produce
> some minor releases, and re-submit it to Boost for review. Perhaps the
> external site would continue on as the home of more fine-grained releases,
> or maybe we would fully reintegrate with Boost at that point (especially if
> Boost addresses some of its own project management and release control
> issues by that point, which I know is being discussed but to my knowledge
> doesn't really have a timeline yet).
> I am willing to take the lead on this project; I have a number of features
> that exist as extensions in the boost sandbox already that would work better
> if they could be more fully integrated into the Boost.Python core, and I
> think I have the necessary understanding of the full code base to coordinate
> things. I'd like to save a full discussion of what features a new version
> would include for another thread, but I am hoping other people on the list
> might volunteer some time to work on aspects they have coded up elsewhere -
> I know many such extensions exist.
> So I have a few questions for anyone who's paying attention:
> - For the original Boost.Python developers and current maintainers, and
> other people familiar with developing Boost libraries: do you have any
> preference on how to approach this? I don't want to step on any toes,
> especially toes attached to people who are responsible for the excellent
> library we already have.
> - For other Boost.Python experts on this list: do you have existing code or
> development time you'd like to contribute?
> Jim Bosch
> Cplusplus-sig mailing list
> Cplusplus-sig at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cplusplus-sig