Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 03:40:59
> >> If Tim did that then we would need to review it now, right?
> > Only its implementation, not its interface or documentation.
> >> (For correctness, anyway. Not necessarily for its interface. But
> >> that doesn't make much difference in practice, since the interface is
> >> supposed to be the std:: one.)
> > yes.
> Taking this to its logical conclusion, wouldn't that make a separate review
> of atomic un-necessary?
at least the documentation part will need to be reviewed. from my experience of
two reviews, most of the review are about the docs, followed by the interface,
followed by the implementation.
> I personally feel that both lockfree and atomic should be accepted in
> principle, but don't feel fully qualified to review either.
talking about this, i would really encourage people to review the boost.lockfree
code. up to now, there is only one (1) vote and the review will end on 28th. i
somehow have the feeling that people either are on holiday or the boostcon
presentations about lockfree data structures (`you need to be a genious to write
lock-free code') scared away many potential reviewers.
seeing that there are only three days left for the review, i somehow doubt that
anyone will review boost.atomic. :/
> I think the
> most important thing is that there be active maintainers for both
> libraries so that when issues come up they are fixed. More than a review,
> atomic needs a maintainer. Lockfree, I am already convinced, is in good
> hands. If the lockfree maintainer is willing to maintain atomic as an
> implementation detail, why not as a stand alone library? If so, let's
> accept both at once and put atomic on the offical list of boost libraries.
i would be willing to co-maintain boost.atomic, but i really don't want to do it
alone. a few days ago, i posted a message to see if there are possible
volunteers to help maintaining boost.atomic. unfortunately i got zero (0)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk