Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue

Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 17:47:31

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Both myself and Antony have served as review manager for other
>> libraries since submitting our libraries. The present situation is
>> frustrating, though I'd imagine for Emil it is even worse seeing as
>> he's been waiting a year longer, and yet has been doing all the work
>> a library maintainer does except without the recognition or
>> visibility of being included into Boost official.
>>
> Doesn't this simply mean that there isn't enough interest in the library
> within the Boost community? :)

Actually there is interest. From quite long time we're considering using 
QVM in/with Geometry.

>> Whilst peer review is important, it is impractical for very niche libraries
>
> Should niche libraries be part of Boost? In the case of QVM I like to think
> that a generic quaternion/vector/matrix library is not *that* niche but the
> evidence seems to show that it is. Regardless I don't feel that the Boost
> community owes me a review. :)
>

I promissed you to be a manager some time ago, so at least I owe you 
that. :)
Therefore I'd like to volunteer.

Regards,
Adam