Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-23 13:06:36
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mathias Gaunard" <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [rfc] rcpp
>> Ivan Sorokin wrote:
>>> 3 When will Boost.Move become a part of boost?
>> When it gets reviewed.
>> It could be said, however, that the review system in place is
>> extremely slow and that it's going to take years (literally).
> Why do you think the review system in place is extremely slow?
He must be comparing it to something else that is faster, like getting new features into the linux kernel...oops, that's slow too, hmmm. I think if people used the pace of the C++ standardization system as a baseline for comparison they would find that boost is extremely fast paced and exciting.
People who propose a library to boost should frankly expect determining interest, iterative revision, review, acceptance and release of a library to take years (literally). Perhaps we should put a warning to that effect in the description of the process on the web site so that it doesn't come as a surprise every time. I didn't mind because it took nine months (literally) just to get permission from my employer to open source my code. By comparision the boost review process was quite reasonable. Actually there are some steps to the open source permission process I went through that might be reasonably added to the boost review process, like running protexIp on libraries under review to make sure that they aren't infringing anyone's copyright, which could expose users of boost libraries to liability.
There are benefits to a slower paced review and acceptance process. If a library author shows the perseverance to get through the review process and get their library into a boost release they have usually demonstrated the dedication required to maintain the library for at least several years to come. We already have several libraries abandoned after acceptance but before release sitting in limbo. If anyone could come along, propose a worthy library and get it accepted in a few weeks then how many unmaintained libraries would we have in boost after only a couple years? Is that what we want? Steven Watanabe can only maintain a hundred or so orphaned boost libraries before his youthful energy will be exhausted and then what will we do? We need more than libraries in boost, we need active community members too.
The cup is half full. If you want to drink from the top half you have to make sure the bottom half stays full.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk