From: more effective thinking in the exceptional C++ programming language (effective.thinking_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-15 03:58:25
The Boost Library Requirements seems to concern only the submission of a new
What is the procedure to follow if I want to submit a proposal to modify or
add a new functionality to an existing library?
On 6/15/07, Tom Brinkman <reportbase_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in
> >> general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with
> >> no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How
> >> about potential review managers? ...
> I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket
> system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be
> changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn
> SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN
> ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll
> discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose
> the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any
> changes to the review process.
> My personal preference would be to not change anything for now. I
> think the process works as well as can be expected. The "Silent
> Rejection" issue is a non-issue. I cant think of a single case where
> this has been a problem. The poster of a proposed library just has to
> follow the rules established at
> http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm. Immediate response is not
> always possible, but they may need to be persistant.
> The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the
> extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in
> taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked
> well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become
> an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are
> of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have
> "languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to
> take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library.
> Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick.
> Keep trying is all that I can say.
> As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will
> always be a problem.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk