Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-14 09:00:27
At Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:43:39 -0500,
Edward Diener wrote:
> >> 2) Library X has to duplicate the functionality of whatever it uses in
> >> Library Y.
> > I would rather say, "import" than "duplicate."
> I do not understand the distinction you are making.
It's not duplicate code if the code doesn't already exist in Boost.
> >> This does create some problems especially if library X heavily depends
> >> on Library Y and Library Y is not accepted into Boost.
> > Just do it the way Spirit/Fusion did it. When X is reviewed, make the
> > parts of Y you need look like a sub-part of X. When Y comes up for
> > review on its own, you adjust, implementing some
> > backward-compatibility glue as needed.
> I agree with that completely, and that's the way I design also.
> Still, in the scenario above, if library Y is not accepted there is
> work to be done in library X to implement under the hood whatever
> functionality from library Y it needed. But that's still not enough of
> a reason for library X to have to wait until library Y gets reviewed
> for it to get reviewed, and I think that was the point of your
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk