Subject: Re: [boost] [http] Formal review of Boost.Http
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-08 16:05:06
Niall Douglas wrote:
> 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 it.
Why look for consensus to modify it now? Shouldn't that have happened
before the document was even published on the Boost Trac?
> 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.
What nonsense. What would you think would happen if had admin access
to Boost, just committed AFIO without a formal review, and then
suggested that changes happen to it only after consensus? Is this how
you're going to respond during the formal review of AFIO? By crying
"Don't attack AFIO when you haven't written your own asynchronous file
> But I'd prefer if it evolves into something more consensual, and as I mentioned everybody has editing rights.
How about we rename the page from "Best Practice Handbook" to "Niall
Douglas' Best Practice Handbook" (or"Niall Douglas' Links To Examples
Of Best Practice For C++ 11/14 Libraries" so that page name matches
Just so that nobody is in danger of considering it Boost blessed just
because it lives on the Boost Trac. Maybe later when sufficient Boost
community involvement shapes it into a document worthy of that former
title, we can rename it back?
> 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.
The only piece of feedback on it that I see is one comment and that
questions whether this should be on your blog instead. 
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk