Subject: Re: [boost] Once accepted, when does a library undergo further review?
From: Alexander Lamaison (awl03_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-07 05:32:27
"Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener
>> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 7:10 AM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Once accepted, when does a library undergo
>> further review?
>> On 1/3/2014 11:56 PM, Richard wrote:
>> > [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> > boost_at_[hidden] spake the secret code
>> > <CAAygHNN5K_G55W8PH6uLHD5aXQOoZChA=2ianHR8dW89RMj36w_at_[hidden]> thusly:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Richard
>> >> <legalize+jeeves_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>> >>> However, once a library has been accepted, it doesn't seem to go
>> >>> through any more peer review.
>> > In other words, once a library has been accepted into Boost, what
>> > prevents that library from suffering from "code rot"?
> Can I suggest that Boost.Test be placed in 'community care'?
+1. Some weeks ago I was arguing that Boost shouldn't treat maintainer
status as a binary. Some important libraries have maintainers who are
-- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk