Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Johannes Brunen (JBrunen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 05:16:46
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> In fact, most utility libraries are added to boost by slipping them
> into other boost libraries.
Maybe, but it is unfortunate, isn't it? If I build a skyscraper, I start at
the bottom not at the top.
> There is a certain priviledge to being a top-level boost library.
> It needs to be reserved for libraries that have received the
> appropriate amount of peer review.
> That cleary did not occur here.
But that is the whole point of this review. We like to see one future
library part of boost. And Vicente (if I understand correctly) likes to
build on such a foundation.
> I agree that if a "review" does not generate enough reviews, than it
> should be scheduled again, with refined
> review criteria to attract more reviewers the next time. That is how
> I am inclined to proceed.
Maybe we should discuss openly the review criteria first?
One danger I can see is to lose attention in such a process. Better is to
define the criteria at the edge the first time.
> Adding concurrent programming libraries to boost without lots and lots
> of peer review is a mistake. It is an extremely
> difficult subject.
Yes and no. Yes is is not good, IMHO, if we have a multitude of similar
libraries or of libraries with imperfect interfaces. No, however, I do think
that we should not aim for the holy grail interface for a particular
library. This is the business of the standard committee (smiling).
Interfaces could/should evolve over time and gained experiences. We see lots
of examples for this in boost.
One last sentence, we should not forget that the interface of the future
library has already gone through the standard committe. This does set the
criteria into quite a different perspective.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk