Re: [boost] Use of boost in safety critical work

Subject: Re: [boost] Use of boost in safety critical work
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 09:06:11

Edward Diener wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> Would you like all decisions for a library made by a consensus of all
> commenters ?

I think the initial peer review and the maintainer ownership to form a kind 
of interesting tension, and maybe something worth thinking about.

>> Many boost libraries have no
>> maintainer or no active maintainer, and upkeep struggles to actually get
>> done. Am I wrong?
> 
> Yes, I believe you are wrong.
> 
> 1) A few libraries have no active maintainer.
> 2) A maintenance group of people has been formed, to which anyone may
> join, for libraries which have no active maintainer.

Yes, the archives of the list can be read here:

 http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.maint

>>> 2...7
>>
>> I doubt any of that matters.
> 
> Matters for what ?

I doubt any of it matters to the company not currently using Boost. I doubt 
any of the points would change their perspective/decision.

Thanks,

Steve.