Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention

Subject: Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention
From: Klaim (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-26 18:37:29

Hi,

I'm following the discussions about potential changes in the boost
organization and I'm happy to see that a lot of people here wants to fix
those problems ( review management, separation of library states (or
libraries), etc.).

I'm a game developer but I'm only using boost in my home projects. At work
I'm currently not using C++ but have been for years in previous jobs. I'm
not a C++ guru yet, just to be clear.
We didn't use boost in my previous game company position, for a lot of
reasons, one being the complexity of the implementations that a lot of my
coworkers (and myself for a long time) couldn't follow -- making debug hard
as if you don't trust a libary and the errors occurs in the library code,
you're not sure if the bug is yours or from the library... . It wouldn't
have been a problem as learning is part of the job, but there were
deadlines. That have already been said so I just add a quick comment about
that. (there were technical reasons too relative to the compilers and
embedded systems we were working on)

---
About potentially replacing SVN by another source control system, I thought
that it would be helpful to point you to the OGRE (C++ OO graphic engine)
lead blog where he reported his data while evaluating Git and Mercurial
(Bazaar was also cited). It might be a good documentation about the current
state of these solutions as a lot of analysis is already done for you.
 - the most interesting comparison :
http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/11/06/dvcs-score-card/
 - you can find other discussions on this page :
http://www.stevestreeting.com/category/development/
 - the community poll thread :
http://www.ogre3d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53129
To sum-up, currently the choice of the Ogre lead would be Mercurial, the
reasons being windows support that is poor for git, git error reporting
being problematic or non-existant and mercurial being easier to learn (git
asking a bit of internal guts knowledge to be well used).
Now, I don't want to start a flamewar too, I'm pointing here those analysis
as interesting documentation to get a faster decision if the source control
system really have to be changed.
There are too much slow processes in the C++ communities.
I hope that some boost libraries will be reviewed or aproved for a
near-complete-or-stable stage soon and I'm using some from of them currently
with the last boost version. It would be very usefull to get the libraries
separately from a source control system, making upgrading a specific library
to fix a bug in the user application easier.
Joël Lamotte.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 23:56, Stefan Strasser <strasser_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> Am Thursday 26 November 2009 21:57:44 schrieb Detlef Wilkening:
>
> >  > I`m relatively new to boost, but judging from the "notes for review
> >  > managers" on the website that doesn`t sound like a lot of work.
> >  > I'm planning to submit a library for review myself, and the prospect
> >  > that that'd take 2 years isn't very encouraging, so I'd probably
> >  > volunteer just for this reason alone.
> >
> > I would like to help too. I would do the work of a review manager for a
> > library too. But I am new to boost. Is there in the boost documentation
> > a page, which describes what a review manager must do. E.g. how to start
> > a review, how to collect the answers to the result, other things to know?
>
> http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>