Re: [boost] [x-files] the code's out there...

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-01 07:56:14

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Tobias Schwinger
>Sent: 30 July 2007 23:35
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: [boost] [x-files] the code's out there...

>There is lots of useful, Boost-worthy utility code out there: 
>Implementation details of existing / upcoming / (maybe even) proposed 
>and rejected libraries that could stand alone, code on private hard 
>disks never brought up for review, additions to existing 
>libraries, etc.
>
>Fact is, that for small submissions the administrative overhead of 
>(even) a formal (fast-track) review can be too high for developers' 
>decency. Just imagine someone allocating five fast-track slots at once 
>just for factoring out some unrelated bits of code from an 
>existing library.
>
>So, why not group a bunch of unrelated utilities into a set of "Boost 
>X-Files" and have them reviewed as a single library? It's completely 
>non-intrusive to the review process and could seriously increase its 
>efficiency. Like the idea?

In a way we have this already, in an unstructured way - called the vault ;-)

But I have been advocating the idea of a 'Boost candidate' status for some time to:

* get code of the type you discuss into use.

* get code used 'in anger' to provide user experience and feedback. 

* to provide more incentive for developers to do the hard work getting stuff up to Boost release standard.

* judge what is good enough for the agreed high cost of a formal review (or a 'light-touch' review for tiny but useful items?).

Perhaps we could ask for several nominations to promote from the vault to the 'candidate' collection, or we could have a straw poll,
or ??

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]