Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 10:56:17
On April 2, 2015 8:49:28 AM EDT, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> One of the things I was going to recommend at Robert's Boost 2.0 talk
> at C++ Now was that if a Boost ready library does not see a review
> after three years, and during that time it has remained maintained to
> the same quality as a Boost library, it should enter Boost
> regardless. Whilst peer review is important, it is impractical for
> very niche libraries, and where the quality of implementation,
> documentation, testing, maintainance and the maintainer are all up to
> Boost standards repeatedly demonstrated over a three year period then
> peer review is in my opinion dispensible.
We determine that a library is up to Boost standard through the peer review process.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk