Re: [boost] GSoC 2011 - Do we need to starting thinking about it?

Subject: Re: [boost] GSoC 2011 - Do we need to starting thinking about it?
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-24 14:17:50

> Could the following example be enough?
>
> Boost.Thread compliance with C++0x standard
> =================================
> Adapt the current Boost.Thread interface to the C++0x standard proposal,
> for C++98 and C++0x compilers.
>
>
I think that this is too specific. If we post this as an example, we'll get
"I am going to port Boost.Thread to C++0x" proposals. I think the trick here
is to write a general C++0x project category and then list a number of
libraries that could be ported to, adapted to, or even rewritten for C++0x.
The latter is especially important. C++0x is quite a different language than
C++, and some of the design decisions made for previous libraries may not be
good choices using 0x.

In fact, I'd be tempted to forgo straightforward ports and focus on entire
rewrites. I doubt that it's feasible for any substantial libraries, but it
does start developing some experience at designing for the newer language.

I think that we should be intentionally vague when publishing these kinds of
projects. Something like

== C++0x Boost.Thread ==
Mentors: xxx, yyy

gives a lot of room for interpretation :)

Andrew

PS I'm not against straightforward projects (i.e., port Boost.Thread to 0x),
but I am against writing requirements as part of the project proposal.