Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 15:16:54
On 02/25/2010 08:50 AM, vicente.botet 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
I think, this would at least delay the official acceptance of
Boost.Atomic, as there will be less spur for it to happen.
>> 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?
Do you mean responsibility for accepting or rejecting these libraries,
were I a review manager? Yes, I would, at least regarding Boost.Move, as
I have relatively good understanding of the domain. It's harder with
Boost.Fiber as I'm not competent in its domain. The main obstacle for me
is lack of time, which, I think, is common for many of us.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk