Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 19:56:08
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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
> I can see the motivation for such a proposal. But honestly I don't
> think that the problem is so large and/or so frequent that it
> warrents so much effort to avoid. Sometimes this is going
> to happen and I'm going to feel that I was snookered. It's
> a fact of life that I just have to accept and work around it.
> I don't think it can be prevented, all I can do is to make
> the library authors sorry they did it. Maybe that diminishes
> future occurences.
Well, yeah, that's a valid point. If trying to prevent this problem
introduces bureaucratic overhead without actually preventing the
problem, then it's not worth it. But if it's true that this problem is
not so frequent and library test cases rarely change, then these
quality assurance procedures would rarely be invoked. When they are,
they may help avoid unnecessary destabilization by, if nothing else,
introducing a little scrutiny, which never hurts really.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk