Boost logo

Boost :

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


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk