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:
>> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk