Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
From: joel falcou (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-24 12:08:26
Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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.
This really seems to make the "have a layered boost" proposal sensible.
We should definetively separate core boost tools and utility library
from system wide
-- ___________________________________________ Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk