Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc]
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-25 19:45:08
> So it's not really realistic to try to give the latter phases to
> SOC or other students. It doesn't match their own goals
> and they don't have the time to do anything but phases I & II.
Who are "they" and what are "their goals"? I don't believe that every
student who writes a proposal has a goal of getting code in the Boost
release. That's fine by me.
> Most people are too well adjusted pscologically to undertake
> subsequent phases on a volunteer bases.
I don't see how this is a productive statement.
> Based on this I really have reservations that GSOC is really
> useful to boost. Also, given Google's coding guidlines,
> which explicitly proscribe most of boost and most of C++11,
> I don't see how Google would find boost a match for them.
I think measuring usefulness by LoC in the release is the wrong
approach. I think the default expectation for students to contribute
the Boost release is the wrong approach, too. Like I said, not every
student has that goal when applying for GSoC funding through Boost.
> To me, a larger and more interesting is how does boost have
> to change to maintain relevant 10 years from now. C++
> needs the libraries, but I don't see them coming from
> anywhere. And boost seems to be getting "bogged down".
> Like many holy quests, it's seems in danger of becoming
> a victim of it's own successes.
I think those are issues for another thread.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk