Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-06 06:23:40

On 11/06/2014 01:11 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> 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
> bandwidth).

I would say a choice of reverse proxy is a bit premature question ;-)

Rather, the question is what we're trying to really achieve. One can come up
with all sorts of things, like:

- Gather interest on potential new libraries
- Easily comment on code
- Easily comment on documentation
- Run tests on potential submissions

and these can have multiple technical solution, like using social networks,
gerrit-style code annotation, medium-style documentation comments, and
changes to the test framework, but it does not appear there's a decision
what we want to achieve.

Vladimir Prus
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

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