Subject: Re: [boost] Use of boost in safety critical work
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 08:19:31
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> It stands for Software of Unknown Pedigree. They classify boost as SOUP.
> I think this is plain wrong.
If they have not investigated the pedigree of Boost, then of course it is
SOUP to them. I don't see how that could possibly be wrong.
> Boost Libraries are all
> 1 Peer reviewed.
The initial submission is peer reviewed. After that there is no pre-commit
review requirement (I said "requirement") in Boost. The submitter/maintainer
then owns all decisions related to the library. Many boost libraries have no
maintainer or no active maintainer, and upkeep struggles to actually get
done. Am I wrong?
I doubt any of that matters.
I found this an interesting read this week:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk