Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC 2010 idea
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-22 20:44:23
On 3/23/2010 8:02 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> Unlike most of the GSOC projects proposed, it would actually
>> be doable in the time alloted.
> I've done my best to make sure that project ideas are realistic in scope,
> and I think that most proposals have been (more or less) reasonable in
> ambition. If there are any that you feel are obviously over-ambitious, I'd
> certainly appreciate knowing.
> Please keep in mind, that the yardstick I've been using to measure "doable"
> isn't the same as "can be accepted into Boost". I don't think we've ever had
> a GSoC project finish in August and be part of Fall release. It's seems to
> be 6+ months for extensions, 1+ years for libraries. The reason for this is
> an entirely different discussion that's well beyond my control, so let's
> steer clear of it for now :)
Last year's Fusion GSoc project (an extension) is one of the most
successful projects thus far. We are very pleased with Christopher's
work on it. Now, I consider Christopher an active maintainer alongside
Dan Marsden, Tobias and me. Porting Fusion to C++0x is not a trivial
task and yet Christopher prevailed and his work is no less than stellar.
He continues to be active with Fusion development to this day, adding
new features, back-porting his extensions to the codebase, providing
user support, etc. I'd say this is an exemplar project. And, make no
mistake, the commitment extends far beyond the time frame of GSOC
for it to be considered as really successful.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net http://www.facebook.com/djowel Meet me at BoostCon http://www.boostcon.com/home http://www.facebook.com/boostcon
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk