Subject: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 00:11:28
I was the review manager of the two futures libraries and a former
Two issues that I see:
1) Should we review two or more libraries at the same time
No. Because of time commitments and lack of review managers, coordinating
two reviews at the same time is too difficult. It has not worked.
2) Should we approve libraries that have significant duplication with
another library already in boost?
Yes. Each library should be reviewed independently, and approved if
it meets the boost community standards.
Boost libraries already has lots of overlap, no reason to change at this point.
What we should do is encourage the authors to work together submit a
combined library. Unfortunately,
that has not worked either.
The trend is probably going to be more and more library duplication,
but this does not concern me.
I would find it perfectly acceptable if another "command line" parser
was approved, or even if another
text parser was approved. The more the better. It shows that boost
is still interesting place to come and
see what talented c++ developers are up too.
There are many ways to abstract a solution and build an interface around it.
Boost should encourage a diversity of approaches.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk