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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 16:52:14

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----- 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 ...

I'm speaking of the formal review for library acceptance.

>
> 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?

That's a good question, and I really don't know the answer. Others
know the history better than me, but I feel like when Boost started
most libraries were already fairly mature at the time they were
submitted for review; if they weren't they were rejected. After
acceptance, must libraries were fairly stable, so existing practice
evolved around boost and many of those early libraries are now in the
ISO draft standard.

But it's good to have major evolutionary changes, now and then.
Boost.Iterator went through a major rewrite, Boost.Lambda is about to
go through the same... But my impression is that the major changes
should be rare, an exception that proves the rule, and should be
handled as a special case.

Daniel Walker