Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-07 02:50:16

On 04-Jul-15 8:23 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2015 at 9:57, Robert Ramey wrote:
>>>> - Should the library be accepted?
>>> Yes, conditional on the items below.
>> A number of "Conditions" follows
>> Just so I understand. Do you think the library should not be accepted
>> if it fails to fulfill any one of the "Conditions" listed?
> Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh in my review. I just wrote a
> difficult email regarding the Boost SC before it, and I am not in a
> good mood from that.
> My review was my recommendation to the review manager. I believe he
> can choose from people's reviews what to include in his final report,
> so he could choose to not follow any or all of my recommendations.
> That's always been the way till now surely? When I review managed
> Antony's TypeIndex, I tried to list the consensus points raised most
> commonly as the basis of the decision, and I mentioned those outlier
> points in a footnote at the end more for people's interest and
> completeness.

That is my understanding as well.

Regarding these particular conditions, to avoid surprises I should say
that all of them are reasonable, but don't necessary qualify as hard

Say, having no Boost dependencies might be good for some users, but
having 'no Boost dependencies' as hard requirement for accepting a
Boost library is not very logical.

Likewise, CI is a good thing, but not accepting a library for lack of CI
will be unfair to the library author, and requiring a particular
CI service will be unnecessary promotion.

Therefore, while all these conditions will certainly be listed in the
review report, I don't think Antony should rush to implement them until
the review is over and result is published.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at