Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)

Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-24 12:04:17

Vladimir Prus wrote:

>> I'm the review manager of Boost.Task but the library is not ready
>> for review, because now Boost.Task depends on Boost.Move,
>> Boost.Fiber and Boost.Atomic (which is not yet on the review queue).
>> Maybe the review withards could add this on the schedule page.
>
> It's perfectly OK to move those 3 libraries to the 'detail' namespace
> of Boost.Task and have review as it is, as opposed to waiting. What
> do you think?

I think I caught hell for doing something similar in the serialization
library.  I had to make a number of components such as
BOOST_STRONGTYPEDEF, state_saver, smart_cast, etc.
which I put into boost  - (not detail) and year afterwards this
was raised as a huge problem.  And this was even though the
components had been their through two reviews.  So I would
be careful about doing this.

Another issue is: if Boost.Task depends upon Boost.Fiber
and Boost.Atomic, what happens if the Boost.Fiber or
Boost .Atomic are not approved?

This also happened to me.  I need a singleton in the
serialization library.  At the time, there as a singleton
in the review queue.  I depended upon it and damn -
it didn't get accepted.  There is still no such component
in the library.  (except for the one I had to add to the
serialization library - this one is pretty similar to one's
recently proposed).

Robert Ramey