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: 2008-11-24 17:40:38

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:38 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.

I agree. Boost has a long history of success, and I certainly respect
the accomplishments of all Boost authors.

Daniel Walker