Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost Library Incubator] Unable to submit library
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-22 11:15:35
Andrey Semashev-2 wrote
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Robert Ramey <
> > wrote:
>> Andrey Semashev-2 wrote
>> But remember that the incubator is not boost.
> I don't quite agree.
>> Each developer can use the
>> method he wants. The only requirement set by the indicator is that there
>> be browsable html documentation. How that is produced and maintained
>> is totally up the library developer/submitter. The incubator only points
>> to the finished product.
> I agree that some degree of freedom is needed, and in fact I'm
> typically in favor of less restricting approaches. However, libraries
> in Blincubator are targeted for inclusion in Boost and therefore
> should respect requirements and preferences imposed by Boost. For
> example, I expect all libraries in Blincubator to be licensed under
boost "requirements and preferences" is quite a slippery concept.
This is apparent when one looks at any review. These often
bring up disagreements regarding documentation, code organization,
naming, etc., etc. These will never really be agreed upon. And
I don't think they need to be - at least for a library in the
"experimental" stage. I preferred to stick to the absolute minimum
requirements - am I'm flexible even on those. (I state that document ion
should included concepts and concept checking for data types. But
non one does that. It's hard to insistent upon this though as few
boost library actually do this now - and of course people don't agree
as to what this means anyway.
> The libraries should follow directory layout and symbol naming
> guidelines set by Boost. The choice of documentation format and build
> system is probably less strict but obviously QuickBook and Boost.Build
> should be the first candidates.
LOL - I don't think boost.build is a good tool for the build system for
any library submitted to the incubator. I explicitly recommend an
alternative. (whether its a good choice for boost itself - another long
debate off topic here).
And I'm not a great fan of QuickBook either. That would be a longer
discussion - but suffice it to say that I believe that the boost toolset
currently holds boost back - and has been doing so for some time.
Of course that's my opinion and it's another discussion. But I focused
on making it
> The same goes for preference of not
> storing auto-generated files in the library repo.
If your not the one actually developing the library - why on earth to
you care? You're only looking at the html documentation. What makes
you think you can/should dictate how one does his development? If
if you think you have that right/authority, how would you enforce it?
Every submission to the incubator conflicts with someone's idea about
how work should be done. If I imposed these kinds of rules - there
might be an incubator - but there wouldn't be any submissions in it.
This manner of thinking is a big reason why boost has stagnated.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Library-Incubator-Unable-to-submit-library-tp4665328p4665448.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.