Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental libraries
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-23 07:57:35
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
> Tom Brinkman
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:54 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Core libraries should separated from experimental
> 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.
Yes - *exposure* is the key to inspiring authors to refine their contributions.
I've argued for some time for a 'experimental' or 'candidate' status.
(And a state not damned with faint praise like 'unstable' - which is perhaps
better described as 'likely_to_be_improved' rather than actively 'not stable').
We'd need a simpler review process to agree to put a library into this
'candidate state' from the 'sandbox state'.
This would mean that when libraries are reviewed for full acceptance, they
should have received much more use, feedback and refinement, and be really ready
for use by those who want a 'release quality' stable product - including decent
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk