Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?

Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 17:03:10

Tom Brinkman wrote:

> But why go to the trouble of adding it as a top-level boost library to
> a library.
> What is so special about the futures library?
> 
> Why does Anthony not just slip "futures" it into boost::threads.  He maintains
> that library.  Its a non-issue.  He doesn't need our approval to do that.
> 
> Considering the way this review has floundered at this point, that is the best
> outcome that I can see.
> 
> If we put it up for review again as top-level boost library, it will need to be
> fully documented, with samples and test cases.  The library has been on the
> review boards for over a year.  Plenty of time for these to have been
> added.

IMHO, such approach simply ruins the review process entirely. Library 
maintainers are free to improve their libraries without a review, but 
this case is clearly not a simple improvement, and it should be properly 
reviewed. If it doesn't pass the review, it should be rejected at this 
point. Futures are no different from any other library in this regard. 
If we establish practice of such privileged library submission, we have 
to admit that reviews procedure doesn't work and have to be revised.

As for conformance to the C++0x interface, I don't consider this 
relevant in any way to the library submission process. This is one of 
the submitted libraries feature, which may or may not be a prerequisite 
for the evaluated library. Fulfilling this prerequisite doesn't 
automatically mean acceptance. Personally, I don't consider strict 
conformance as a must. We use dosens of libraries that don't have 
analogues in C++ standard and it doesn't make them any less useful.

All above is strictly my personal opinion.