Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-22 15:54:18
Thomas Klimpel wrote
>> Some of the accepted boost libraries seem to
>> receive only minimal maintenance by their original authors,
>> and making it easier to contribute
>> libraries to boost would probably only increase the number of
>> libraries in minimal maintenance mode. So I
>> guess the recent efforts to encourage the boost
>> community members to spend some maintenance time on
>> libraries they haven't authored is exactly the
>> right thing to do for the current situation.
Agreed, that is a problem, but different from the one
I'm trying to emphasize here.
>> I'm not sure whether you want to highlight the excessive
>> quality criteria for acceptance into boost here,
>> or the lack of review managers.
Probably more the lack of review managers. I wish more
of the core boost library developers would step up
and mentor new library submissions. Not sure why they
don't. Its actually quite fun.
>> But the sandbox is actually quite a nice place to flesh out a
>> potential library. And there is quite a number of libraries in the
>> sandbox that are currently in active flesh out mode, and will stay in
>> that mode for quite some time.
The sandbox is just a nice place to dump a library. Most are
quickly abandoned and receive very little attention. Why?
Exposure, they need exposure. Having a place in for the
promising experimental libraries to to get some exposure, and where
the authors can toot how great their library is would be fun
for all involved. That's why I come to boost -- for an exchange
of ideas and to be inspired by others. The sandbox does not
do that for me.
Having libraries in the experimental branch would focus everyone
attention on the upcoming libraries.
Nothing can focus a library's authors attention if he knows that
his library is getting exposure and being noticed by others.
I played a part in developing the the review queue, but
it never changes. I don't like how its evolved and its stuck
in the status quo.
The review queue does not give enough exposure and its now taking about a
year to get your library reviewed.
Actually, I would like to see that the review queue is abandoned
and replaced with the experimental branch.
The only important review would then be when to decide when the library
has matured enough to move it from the non-stable to the stable branch of
The review wizards would manage this process. It would be much more
fun for all involved.
The current system is stale and not inspiring
the level of innovation that I believe is possible here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk