Re: [boost] Re: py_cpp

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
> agree
> > > that just because there's further extensions planned is not a
> reason
> > > to delay submission.  I hope to use a similar tactic with the
> Boost
> > > 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
> obvious
> > 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.

-Dave