Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http

Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-08 13:06:52

On 8/8/2015 1:47 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2015 at 22:18, Glen Fernandes wrote:
>
>>>>> all the stuff from https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BestPracticeHandbook.
>>>>
>>>> The items listed in https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BestPracticeHandbook 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://*.boost.org/* exists when it is not a "Best practice
>> handbook" and not anything that the Boost community agrees upon or
>> even acknowledges.
>
> 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.

Why don't you submit it for the traditional review instead? After all, 
having spent months (or years!) of your personal time on a library don't 
automatically entitle you to make it a Boost library.

> 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.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think anyone claimed the Handbook 
isn't useful. For me personally, the implications that this is a Boost 
blessed document rubs me the wrong way, just as libraries that call 
themselves Boost.Whatever without ever having been reviewed do.

Regards,
-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com