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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 22:59:30

Hey Robert,

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:gghocm$482$1_at_ger.gmane.org...
> My take on this whole question is a lot different.
> In the quest for excellence - which libraries are you going to set aside?

If by that you mean "Which libraries should be marked as 'Stable'", I think 
it would be easy to identify a few which are going to be use by almost 
anyone: Shared ptr, range, iterators,...
Of course, differrent people will have different set functions but that's 
the discussion I'm trying to initiate.

> And I might use a library that is less than what I want in some aspect
> because it's still better than rolling my own.

Of course.  That is actually a big reason why I'm proposing the split 
release schedule.  We'd love to use some of the newer libraries but can't, 
because they are only available with the "full" releases of boost.

> So the idea of imposing more and more infrastructure to get
> better quality wouldn't work.

I don't know that we can impose "more quality".
To their credit, for most part that job is already being done very well by 
the developers here.
I would use the phrases "predictability" and "easier upgrade path" to 
describe what I'm looking for.

> And if implemented would result
> in a smaller number of useful libraries being available to those of
> us that need them.

I am not sure if you are referring to my comments in particular, but please 
let me know what are your concerns so I can address them.  I think what I'm 
saying implies the complete opposite - making more libraries available to 
more people.

> What I really need is a better way to assess the library along the
> above dimensions.  Making this type of information publically
> available would help me decide which libraries to consider
> and would let authors know what they need to address to
> make their libraries more popular.
<Rest of description snipped>

That sounds interesting.  I wonder though if such critique may bruise a few 
egos and have the opposite effect of having them give up on the project? 
Also, if a library went through a major change/redesign, how would the new 
scores reflect this?

Tom