Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-08 12:47:56

On 7 Aug 2015 at 22:18, Glen Fernandes wrote:

> >>> all the stuff from
> >>
> >> The items listed in do not represent any official boost policy nor have they been discussed such that they represent any consensus. So though they may be relevant to Nail's recommendation, they may not be relevant to anyone else's.
> >
> > +1
> +1. I'm not really sure why a page called "BestPracticeHandbook" that
> lives on http://** exists when it is not a "Best practice
> handbook" and not anything that the Boost community agrees upon or
> even acknowledges.

It's a wiki document. Anyone with a Trac login can edit it.

If you feel anything in there is technically wrong, fix it.

If you feel anything in there shouldn't be in there, raise the issue
here and if there is consensus it shouldn't be in there, we'll delete

I would also add that library authors will pick and choose from the
handbook as they see fit. It's not a gospel, nor claims to be one.

The key thing Boost needed was a library development resource guide
as we had little which was up to date and especially relevant to C++
11/14. I wrote my personal vision of that, as I was the one who
invested the 120 hours or so of my family time to write it and I
think that investment of my time gave me that right for the first
edition. If you, or anyone else being critical of my substantial
effort invested here, would like to write something better then go
ahead and do it instead of +1 attacking it when you haven't done
anything better yourself.

But I'd prefer if it evolves into something more consensual, and as I
mentioned everybody has editing rights. That indeed was the original
intent - to get the ball rolling on some new shared documentation, as
nobody was investing the effort to improve Boost documentation at
that level in recent years. You may note each section in the wiki
document has a comments section in which people can ask questions, or
point out mistakes or otherwise give feedback per-section.

That feedback system has already proven useful in substantially
improving some of the sections in the guide where what I wrote was
technically wrong, confusing or unclear, so I guess some people are
finding the Handbook useful.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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