Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 19:49:01

On 2 Jun 2015 at 13:37, Michael Caisse wrote:

> > The precedent for handling this is very well understood.
> 
> Can you please cite specific examples of this "precedent"?

After trying to find as you ask, I could find none - there was one 
withdrawal, and it was because the author no longer wished their 
library to enter Boost. It looks like there is no precedent. I 
withdraw my assertion.

> I've only been active in the Boost community for 10-years, but let me 
> help correct some of your assertions. It is not uncommon for libraries 
> to need a restructure of directories and namespaces *after* approval. 
> The goal is that authors present a very high quality library without 
> having to completely boostify it before finding out if it will be 
> accepted. Directory structures and namespaces are not a requirement of a 
> review. CI testing is also not a requirement for a review to be 
> successful. You are free to voice your opinion and to write documents 
> that promote it; however, you cannot force your requirements onto the 
> process.

This whole debate is mainly being caused by the gulf between what is 
officially documented and what individual people think the community 
is agreed upon and then what individual personal opinion is. That 
gulf is the root of a lot of wasted time and effort. Like us reading 
and writing these emails right now.

This is why I recommend to those submitting libraries that you don't 
invite controversy when you submit a library for review. Instead of 
us discussing the OP's library as we should be, here we are arguing 
about what a review is or isn't or should be, which is really the 
argument about the future direction of Boost, yet again.

Instead of viewing this as me "forcing my requirements onto the 
process", try considering it instead as me "advocating the least hard 
way of getting your library into Boost". Instead of viewing me as 
always negative like Hartmut and I would assume others on the 
steering committee, try viewing me as positive and actually trying to 
help library authors achieve their goal of getting into Boost.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/