Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements

Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 15:40:08

On 2 Apr 2015 at 21:59, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> thanks for clarifications, I indeed initially misunderstood your
> suggestion. What you propose, a certain minimum level of quality/testing
> to demand, seems quite reasonable to me. 

Just to clarify a bit further, somewhere in my archives I drew up a 
list of 21 things a Boost library must have which were probably easy 
to check using libclang. Naming conventions, proper use of a DECL 
macro for visibility, proper use of the virtual keyword and so on.

My only real concern really is why keep such tooling Boost only when 
it could be contributed to the clang static analyser. It's also 
boring and tedious work writing and debugging such "style checkers". 
I also feel surprise that no corporate sponsor hasn't sponsored such 
tooling yet, and that makes me suspicious if they are as easy to 
implement as I think.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/