Subject: Re: [boost] Application need a Review Manager. Anyone is interested?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-20 20:53:12
On 20 Apr 2014 at 19:25, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
> > Sure, I got that, but from the 90 seconds I looked at your docs it
> > wasn't clear to me why you appeared to be replacing instead of
> > extending Boost.Process. Of course you may not be replacing, but that
> > wasnt't obvious in 90 seconds of looking.
> Just to be clear Niall, the part that you think is common to Process is
> basically the server/daemon setup feature, am I right?
Eh, maybe. I was more thinking there might be some process control in
there somewhere, and that might overlap with Boost.Process. I really
didn't look for more than 90 seconds.
> What I mean is: wouldn't it be possible to review the Boost.Application
> interface and current implementation but assume that the parts that
> should be part of Boost.Process/Extension will use these libraries once
If a review manager can be found, anything can be reviewed. It
doesn't mean the review will work though. I think the worst outcome
in a community review though is when almost nobody contributes a
review because it's too hard and/or no one cares enough, with the
second worst outcome being when each reviewer has a totally different
understanding to any other as to what they are reviewing, which makes
the job of a review manager almost impossible.
In that sense, small, single purpose libraries have a lot going for
them under how Boost currently has configured peer review.
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk