Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 16:20:47

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Walker" <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

> 
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> on Sun Nov 23 2008, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Walker wrote:
>>>> I was just sitting here thinking that benevolent "dictator" is really
>>>> not an apt term for what I'm talking about. I'm really talking about
>>>> some sort of public servants who would represent the interests of the
>>>> community of boosters. These benevolent representatives would perform
>>>> the service of insuring the community's votes are adhered to from one
>>>> release to the next by judiciously exercising the power of write
>>>> permission for unit tests on svn. We could call them the "quality
>>>> congress." ;) Or maybe committee is a better word. Or maybe we could
>>>> just make this a function of the release manager, if he isn't already
>>>> overburdened. Anyway, I guess you all get the idea.
>>>
>>> LOL - getting into political philosophy here.
>>>
>>> This is totally the wrong approach and would consume enormous
>>> resources and stymy any attempt to actually get anything done -
>>> pretty much like the "real congress".
>>>
>>> The right model is that the author makes his library which reflects
>>> his own choices and values.  The review process guarentees
>>> that it meets some consensus about minimun acceptable levels
>>> of utility, quality, etc.  The it is unleashed upon the world
>>> as part of the "boost release".  At this point, users review
>>> it in light of thier current needs. They might use it, they might
>>> complain about, they might do any number of things.  One
>>> of the things they do is report on one of the lists.  And
>>> this guides other users as to whether or not they expect
>>> to use it.
>>>
>>> We can see this process playing as we speak regarding
>>> boost range.  Looks like its working pretty well to me.
>>
>> Thank you, Robert.  One of the reasons Boost exists is to be more nimble
>> than any committee (particularly the C++ standards committee) can be.
> 
> That's true, but at the same time, one goal of boost, as I've
> understood it, is to establish existing practice, which could
> eventually lead to inclusion in the standard library. So, yes, boost
> should be more nimble than the ISO, but I think it should not be so
> fluid as to make the peer review process meaningless and undermine
> progress toward establishing best practices.

Robert, Daniel I'm sorry but, from which peer review process are you talking about? The review of the acceptation of a new library or ...

The goal of a review been to ensure quality., you don't think that every major evolution of a Boost library should have its own mini-review? 

Vicente