Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow?(wasRe:[rfc] rcpp)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 02:14:53
Pete Bartlett wrote:
>> From Robert Ramey
>>> 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 seems a little more negative than I remember. If we are thinking
> of the same thread (see e.g.
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/11/130567.php ) then a lot
> of the discussion was about headers directly in the boost root
> directory rather
> than a subdirectory, rather the issue at hand.
Hmmm - I thought ..Fiber and Atomic were intended to be put
into boost/.. rather than boost/detail/... In any case there is
lots of stuff in boost/ and no clear policy about it.
Note that I'm not advocating one thing or another. Rather I'm
relating that the lack of definition on this created a lot of problem
for me in the past, in spite of the best of intentions.