Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-01 11:15:17
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:02:03 -0000
"Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> [...] such libraries when they occur. I think that this should be a
>> Boost mandate: "if you want to submit your library for a Boost
>> review you need to get sandbox access and put your library into it
>> using the recommended directory structure." I find that much easier
>> than getting some library from some URL address on the Internet or
>> from the Boost vault, as a monolithic zip file, and unzipping and
>> hoping that the directory structure corresponds to something I can
>> try without wasting a great deal of time figuring out how to use
>> said library.
> Your explanations are fine - and I strongly support enforcement of the
> 'Boost Standard File Layout.
> But IMO this shows:
> * Judging by a fair number of projects in sandbox, Boost has failed to
> get over to wannabe authors the requirement/desirability for this
> structure. [...]
There's also this:
When I was preparing XInt, that's what I saw, so that's how I laid out
my directory structure:
I didn't know that was wrong until you (Paul) told me.
> * Eventually one might find
> http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html .
FWIW, I never thought to look at that one when setting up XInt for
> * This tells you *what* you need to know, but not *why* it is like
> * Telling *why* often gives a big push to compliance.
The requirements.html that I linked to above includes a partial
rationale. Perhaps there should be prominent links on both pages to one
another, one on the requirements.html page in place of the
Sub-directory table, and one on the sandbox.html page telling people to
review the requirements page for more details? Those would have helped
me a great deal.
-- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk