From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 22:11:53
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Oct 14 2007, "Sean Huang" <huangsean-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Specifically, my questions are:
>> 1. Do changes in this magnitude warrant a mini-review?
>> 2. Is it a good idea that the new implementation be reviewed by other boost
>> threading experts such as Peter and/or Howard? Take it to the next level,
>> does it make sense to have a peer review process for at least significant
> It's a good idea, but I don't think we should mandate it. The
> autonomy of library developers to make improvements has always been a
> core Boost policy, and taking that away could significantly dampen the
> sense of ownership (and thus enthusiasm) of library authors.
I agree with Dave.
The thread library (and some other Boost libs) are also a bit special in
that they are becoming (or already have become) part of the C++ standard
library. That is subjecting them to a whole additional level of peer
review, including an upcoming public review period.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk