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

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" <daniel.j.walker-AT-gmail.com> 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
http://www.boostpro.com