Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 09:38:16

on Sun Nov 23 2008, "Daniel Walker" <> 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
>> 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.

Perhaps more importantly, major evolutionary changes have historically
been handled well, without causing major pain to users.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at