Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-03 06:14:21
On 04/02/2015 10:40 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2015 at 21:59, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> thanks for clarifications, I indeed initially misunderstood your
>> suggestion. What you propose, a certain minimum level of quality/testing
>> to demand, seems quite reasonable to me.
> Just to clarify a bit further, somewhere in my archives I drew up a
> list of 21 things a Boost library must have which were probably easy
> to check using libclang. Naming conventions, proper use of a DECL
> macro for visibility, proper use of the virtual keyword and so on.
> My only real concern really is why keep such tooling Boost only when
> it could be contributed to the clang static analyser. It's also
> boring and tedious work writing and debugging such "style checkers".
> I also feel surprise that no corporate sponsor hasn't sponsored such
> tooling yet, and that makes me suspicious if they are as easy to
> implement as I think.
I'm not really surprised about that part - selling tools is generally
hard, especially targeting less tangible aspects like quality, especially
addressing third-party open-source products. It's not like corporations
have budgets specifically for helping open-source projects they use.
-- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com