From: Moore, Paul (paul.moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-17 05:01:22
From: Peter Dimov
> From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>> If all those safeguards are in place, do you still think there is too
>> danger the guidelines will be seen as requirements?
> It all comes down to:
> If I submit a library to boost, and this library hasn't even heard of the
> boost guidelines,
> 1. Will this be a reason for rejection?
> 2. Will this generate several hundred of review comments along the lines
> "Why don't you follow guideline x.y?"
And a comment from someone who already has an accepted library:
1. Will rationa be expected to change to conform?
2. Will I be expected to do the work?
3. Which bits of the document are mandatory vs optional? (Yes, I did read
the document - admittedly only quickly - and no, it isn't clear).
I vote for rejection - not because of any particular failings, but because I
don't see the point. (As someone else pointed out, things would be different
if library maintenance was done by the group, rather than by individuals).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk