Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-06 05:11:46

On 6 Nov 2014 at 12:15, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> Personally, I would say incubator would need considerable work before it
> can become useful for library reviews. Say, if I can made per-line
> comments on proposed library code, like gerrit does, it would be rather
> useful. If I can create design issues right away, so that they can be
> listed later and reviewed, it would be rather useful. It does not appear
> to me that wordpess post with comments is better than a thread in a mail
> client. At least mail client allows to collapse a subthread, or delete
> it.

Github provides an excellent API
( which does exactly
as you ask.

Even a read only summary of the comments posted about a library would
be very useful. And not too demanding on Github if cached via a
varnish reverse proxy (i.e. we don't have to pay Github for the

I also wouldn't rule out using JSON to live embed the github stream
into the Incubator. Github eats its own dog food, so you can make a
mashed up Incubator reinterpretation of Github with Incubator
semantics. Then people can live review code on the Incubator, and it
appears in Github too.

This is where I was coming from with having the SC pay for expert
advice and consultancy. This sort of web programming pays as well as
top C++ programmers, and for good reason, yet it is none of our core


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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