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: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 00:50:42

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)

> 
> On 02/24/2010 02:15 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> 
> Please, don't go that way. At least Boost.Atomic is a widely demanded 
> addition to Boost, and if it goes as some closed implementation detail 
> for an other library, it would be a great shame for users (it would 
> surely be for me).

Oliver had its own specific atomic implementation. He has changed to use the recent Boost.Atomic library, and I think this is good. The issue is that this library is not on the review schedule, so I don't see a problem if Oliver push its implementation to a detail namespace.

> As an alternative I would suggest to settle a common review for the 
> three components, while leaving them all top level libraries. That would 
> resolve the issue of "partial approval" that Robert pointed out.

Andrey do you think you could take the responsability for Boost.Move or Boost.Fiber?

Thanks,
Vicente