From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-11 09:29:50
"Fernando Cacciola" wrote:
> The very high quaility of boost libraries is due to the so-called BOOST
> METHOD (I just coined the term, but how I like it :): the managed and
> peer-reviewed acceptance process.
The very high quality is due to people who choose
to hang out here and contribute.
Bigger problem that API changes are abandoned
libraries. A tool or a process helping to maintain
these libraries is needed. Even visible
marking of these libraries is missing.
Effective and visible way to collect bug reports
does not exist (I much appreciate the work
of Marshal Clow but tool support is necessary, IMHO).
There's no way for people to contribute
with small examples to amend the often
Boost reviews often do not gather sufficient
number of reviewers and the official short period
needs to be extended almost every time.
It is not easy to do review before the official
period starts (no versioning of the source,
schedule is often missing).
Information about abandoned but potentialy
handy libraries is not kept anywhere
to be picked by someone else. The source
code is usually lost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk