Subject: Re: [boost] boost_extension
From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 18:06:53
> While I fully recognize the problem of new libraries acception into Boost
> (I'm in the same boat as you) I don't quite understand how the proposed
> boost_extension would be different from Boost itself. I mean, on what basis
> can we claim that boost_extension reviews will be more active and frequent
> than what we have in Boost? Consider also that Boost is a well recognized
> library with a wide community already, while boost_extension will be a new
There is no guarantee. But, people like me are being hold back. When
gil was introduced there were a lot of people actively creating
extensions. Having boost_extension might hopefully create some
momentum. As, for instance, for boost::ggl there is still some
momentum that could be harvest.
We could even consider relaxing the rule of who can be a review
manager. For me personally I would consider an active person with
domain knowledge to be sufficient. Remember, extension can be very
> Another point of concern for me is the release cycle of boost_extension. You
> mentioned earlier that this project is intended to be hosted on SourceForge.
> If I'm not mistaken, this means that we will have to set up a testing
> facility independently from Boost. This will also require quite an amount of
> additional arrangements to be done, such as a web interface with testing
> results, release scripts, etc.
I was hoping the people at boost could help out for the regression
testing. It should be in their interest.
> IMHO, such a project has a better chance to start if it uses current Boost
> facilities, at least at first. Perhaps, restructuring sandbox and periodical
> testing and releasing it as a separate package might be a good start.
Sure, the more help the better.
Thanks for your insight,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk