Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost summer of formal reviews
From: Borislav Stanimirov (b.stanimirov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-11 11:57:22

On 11-Mar-14 14:18, Rob Stewart wrote:
> On March 11, 2014 6:29:15 AM EDT, Borislav Stanimirov <b.stanimirov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Still, if you've got concrete ideas for improving the backlog, speak up.

Well I am not familiar with all ideas that have been given and the
following could have been mentioned before (and even shown to be bad),
but what about openly accepting donations for Boost and using them to
actually pay the review managers for their time.

Apart from that, what is the actual risk of adding a bad library to the

The following is an idea for a fundamental change in the review process:

* Have a short informal review process based on short reviews from the
community. More than a spam filter than an actual review process,
actually. The "reviews" could be something like "Well. It looks OK to me".

* Then have an _automated_ test for eligibility. Does the library
compile as part of Boost in the most popular compilers and
configurations? Static and dynamic analyzers can provide code coverage
info by the library's tests (100% would be a requirement). They will
check whether it crashes, has memory leaks, and more.

* After a library passes the automated tests, it just becomes a part of
boost. _BUT!_ It does so in the namespace boost::bleeding_edge. Have a
disclaimer that bleeding_edge libraries haven't passed a formal review
yet. Still, even with such a disclaimer, they would be exposed to the
public, and more people would be encouraged to try them.

* To get out of the bleeding_edge namespace, a library needs to either
receive a formal review (in the format formal reviews are made now), or
demonstrate its use in several real-life working projects (independent
from the author).

How about that?

-- Borislav

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at