From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-18 14:04:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Kempf" <sirwillard_at_[hidden]>
> > > So long as the library is complete at time of submission then I
> > > that just because there's further extensions planned is not a
> > > to delay submission. I hope to use a similar tactic with the
> > > thread library, submitting a core set of features that will allow
> > > developers to expand into more complex concepts.
> > Then we have to define "complete". Py_cpp was complete in that it
> was useful
> > and relatively bug-free upon submission. There were also a lot of
> > enhancements waiting to be made.
> I think I might have been misunderstood here. I agree with you. I
> think py_cpp was "complete" enough for submission. I was arguing
> against the general idea of not including a library that has obvious
> room for extensions.
I know that, but you were also arguing that completeness is an important
criterion. So we have to say what "complete" means.
> Simple changes, such as minor extensions, bug fixes and optimizations
> are easy to deal with by simply allowing the "maintainer" to update
> the CVS repository as he sees fit. However, major extensions to an
> existing library should go through formal review, IMHO. Otherwise it
> would be possible for a developer to submit a simple library, such as
> a date class, and after formal review "extend" the code to include
> full network time protocol socket support, including an iostreams
> based socket class, with no formal review of the obviously unrelated
> and vastly important concepts.
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the concern, but we have done
very well so far by trusting the judgement of the boost membership.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk