Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Experimental Re: [variant] Maintainer
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-02 11:33:27
On 7/2/15 7:44 AM, Gottlob Frege wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:29 AM, AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ©
> <kaballo86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Perhaps you'd wish to bring back the Sandbox
>> (http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html), which has been superseded by
>> standalone repositories since the move to Git.
> I think we need *something* for experimental libraries. Even if it is
> just someone's own git repository stamped (but not endorsed) with the
> Boost "brand".
> Or a page in boost.org listing current experiments.
> Or... something.
> I'd like some kind of experimental area that would help find the best
> possible libraries.
Why isn't the boost library incubator considered ideal here? In
combination with github it already provides everything necessary - and
significantly more already. And it's ridiculously easy to use.
> What I'd _really_ like is more experimentation in _current_ Boost
> libraries, breaking users left and right
This is extremely simple - just fork the library you want to experiment
with and create a new page in the incubator names - Serialization -
Experimental and you're in business.
Another possibility would be for the library maintainer to create a new
branch in the Git repo named "experimental" or "constexpr_version" or
whatever and encourage people to use that. Again, for a way to find
this, just create a new page in the incubator.
The main problem with "experimental" libraries is that authors of such
libraries submit packages which are not really ready for users to
experiment with. They are just (half-baked) ideas.
So my take on this is:
a) we already have everything we need implemented. There is no lack of
opportunity to create/maintain and promote experimental libraries.
b) there is no value in complicating boost organization and
infrastructure to re-do what we already have. In fact, we should
continue to exploit our new modularization scheme to reduce our workload
so we can concentrate more on increasing quality through better reviews.
The real obstacle to creating more libraries and more experimental
variations of boost libraries is that it's a lot of work to do and very
few people have the motivation, experience, skills, and/or free time to
actually make something which looks like a boost quality library.
Our clunky tools certainly don't help either.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk