From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 00:57:11
> I never get that "overwhelming feeling" when I see the library list.
> OTOH, I get a secure feeling thinking that I have all these tools
> at my disposal and all are solid, peer-reviewed code. The Boost
> libraries is nothing compared to the list that Source Forge
> provides, yet no one complains about being overwhelmed by SF's
> immensity. It's actually an ingredient to its success!
Perhaps it is time for Boost to reconsider what it is trying to be? Is
it high quality libraries that ought to be in the standard? Or is it -
the sourceforge role model - an umbrella organization over a set of
experimental, and often competing, libraries?
If the latter then the single release model is wrong; the immense effort
to get the last few releases out the door supports that.
Banning all new libraries is a bit extreme of course, but actually worth
Here is less extreme idea: split into boost-core and boost-extra. And
all new libraries go in boost-extra.
To move to boost-core requires at least a year in boost-extra and
another review/vote to approve the move. The criteria would be not
"quality" but that a large number of other boost-extra libraries depend
on it and that the interface is very stable. boost-core would have a
long period between releases, mainly for bug fixes. boost-extra
libraries each release independently.
Just some ideas,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk