Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-25 16:47:49

At 12:51 PM 7/25/2001, Jeremy Siek wrote:

>We've discussed starting an algorithms library before, but at the time
>there wasn't enough motivation. I agree with Vladimir, we should
>definitely start up this effort again.
>One issue is how we should coordinate this. I imagine this library may
>up being a bunch of contributions from a number of people.
>One possibility would be that we could start a CVS branch for the
>algorithms library. We could then build up the collection of algorithms
>for a while, and then once it stabalizes we could go through the review.
>Another option is to just submit the algorithms for review one (or more)
>at a time and slowly build up the library that way.
>Beman, what do you think is the right way to do this?

What we talked about before was something like this:

* Ask for two or three volunteers to be the Boost algorithms library
maintainers. (Two or three to ensure minor decisions are agreed to by more
than one person, and also that the workload is spread.) John Potter has
expressed interest in being one of the maintainers.

* Define some policies as to what algorithms do and don't qualify for

* Put together a smallish seed library that illustrates the policies.

* Formally review the policies and seed library at that point.

* From that point on, we basically delegate decisions like "add this
proposed algorithm or not?" to the maintainers. Also decisions to refine
the policies. If anyone disagrees with the decisions, they can send off a
howl to the main list, and we can discuss the issue. But basically we let
the maintainers run the library, once the initial policies are agree to via
formal review.

How does that sound?

By the way, I think the same applies to a string algorithm library like the
stuff Darin Adler has been working on.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at