Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] Are we going to participate?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-18 05:42:54
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Karsten Ahnert
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] Are we going to participate?
> On 02/13/2013 11:06 PM, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> > Andrew was the GSoC administrator for Boost in the previous years but
> > unfortunately has no time this year. So I jump in. I just created the
> > Wiki page <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/SoC2013> and will
> > send around another email in the coming days. For now I encourage
> > everyone to brainstorm just like Antony did about what you would like
> > to see in Boost. Google didn't invite us last year to participate in
> > the program, and the reason was that we didn't have enough
> > ideas/projects. So feel free to send ideas to this mailing list or add them to the Wiki page.
> > For now no idea is too stupid - and even if it is, it might help
> > someone else to get a good idea. :)
> I would like to propose a GSOC project ideas aiming to implement a new feature for odeint. It
> really nice to have more implicit ODE solvers in odeint and an extended algebra/operations
> matrices and solution of linear systems. This would widen the scope of the library enormously,
> directly addresses partial differential equations (PDEs) and enters the field of HPC.
This sounds a good project in that it is conceivably doable in 3 months, and can build on the
existing infrastructure of testing and docs, and does not necessarily require a review (or only a
My experience mentoring the Checks project is that it was possible to get to a reviewable state -
but only because I had set up the infrastructure with a template for testing and docs. I think we
would have made it to review if the student hadn't decided that there was a better way of doing it
and so re-wrote it substantially!
- and then his studies intervened ;-(
This suggests to me that revision or rejuvenation or extension of existing libraries to produce
'Version 2' might provide good projects? Or picking up orphaned projects or libraries (endian? -
Beman has more important jobs to do ;-) )
We seem to have a lot of nearly finished projects - and that means a lot of wasted work?
PS This does not exclude 'Blue Skies' projects suggested by Andrew Sutton where we can't expect a
--- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk