+1

I have been monitoring this DL to track any decisions, but would be
interested in a more informal process for reviewing ideas that are parallel
to this effort.

I personally have been working on a new build system that aims to address
many concerns with how building and sharing modules could work in a
dedicated source pack management solution. Would sharing status updates be
relevant to this DL, or is there a better place to get involved?

Thanks,
Matthew Asplund

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023, 8:27 AM Bret Brown via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> I'm very interested in collaboration on tooling. People interested in
> collaborating with people watching this list should absolutely not be shy.
>
> The awkward thing, though, is that this forum is narrowly good at these
> things:
>
> - Establishing consensus or lack thereof on technical decisions
> - Formalizing requirements with consensus
> - Raising some amount of awareness in preparation for the above
>
> There is a lot of interesting work to do that doesn't look like those
> things. For instance, developing proofs of concepts for ideas or
> implementing new standard features for existing projects.
>
> I don't expect that, outside of fairly simple and straightforward
> initiatives or raising general awareness, jumping straight into discussion
> on this mailing list would be the most productive approach. An initial
> email here gauging appetite for an idea is good. Sharing initial research
> for feedback also works well. If interactive discussion is interesting, I
> suggest formatting that research into some sort of paper, and a meeting of
> the Tooling Study Group will be scheduled to discuss and/or poll on
> consensus.
>
> My main concern is that I don't have specific ideas of a lower cost, less
> official, and more efficient venue -- somewhere to work on projects and
> problems as opposed to papers. I'm of the mind that some sort of "ecosystem
> evolution" community needs to be intentionally formed if we're going to
> gain enough momentum on problems like standards for build system or
> packaging standards. Assuming some plausibiities emerge there, I would want
> to see them brought back to ISO for the purposes of clearly defining at
> least interop requirements.
>
> Bret Brown
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 5:13 AM Harald Achitz via SG15 <
> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Did you have a look at any of the documents?
>>
>> My impression is, that, for example, a document called `Capabilities of
>> build and deployment tools` has at least some relation to what we try to
>> define here.
>>
>> That nobody there is specialized on C++ and that the point of view is a
>> broader one is obvious.
>>
>> I just thought, given the fact that not too many people are very active
>> here in SG15, and that there are people out there who care about the topic
>> in general, it might be worth to see if there could be synergies.
>>
>> But if there is zero interest, then maybe not.
>>
>> I just fear, with the give resources, we will not come very far with any
>> of the topics we wish would be addressed in the C++ eco system.
>>
>> /Harald
>> On 2023-06-13 14:14, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>
>> The Ecosystem IS is currently focused on C++ specific issues that tools
>> need to deal with. Looking at the entire list of published standards from
>> SC 7/WG 4 starting in 1995, they are entirely focused on tools for aiding
>> in "software engineering", where that is interpreted the same way as civil
>> engineering. They do not work on any standards related to any tools that
>> the Ecosystem IS would ever cover.
>>
>> - Michael Spencer
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 11:57 AM Harald Achitz via SG15 <
>> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I have a question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7/WG 4
>>> which translates to Software and systems engineering/Tools and
>>> environment
>>>
>>> And there is ongoing work regarding build and deployment tools.
>>>
>>> I found some documents
>>>
>>> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7/WG 4 N 1572
>>> Base Document of PWI Build_Deployment_Tools, 221104
>>> There might be newer versions.
>>>
>>> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7/WG 4 N 1586
>>> NWIP_ballot_documen of NP_Capabilities of build and deployment tools
>>>
>>> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7/WG 4 N 1571
>>> Summary of PWI Build_Deploy_Tools_221104
>>> (thats basically a presentation)
>>>
>>> There might be more. It's still a bit hard for me to navigate the ISO
>>> database, and I do not have the time I wish I would have for those
>>> topics.
>>> So there might be more. However
>>> I wonder if it has been considered to look over the boarder from SC 22 ,
>>> see what's going on and try to create a liaison.
>>>
>>> Especially in the context of the upcoming work on ecosystem-is.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Harald
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SG15 mailing list
>>> SG15_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG15 mailing list
>> SG15_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SG15 mailing list
> SG15_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>