Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Review quality [ was stack trace review]
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-03 00:18:12

On 1/2/17 5:14 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
> Robert,
> I do agree with your points below about importance of tests and duties
> and ever-present risks associated with deployments of external libs.
> Still, I am not quite sure how it all stemmed from my fairly simple (and
> I thought non-controversial) view that the incubator had those risks
> prohibitively greater compared to the Boost proper.

I felt that this misunderstood the role I had envisioned for the
incubator and I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify this. I has
always been my hope those who aspire to contribute to boost would have a
place where could get information on how to make a boost quality library
and a place to get feed back on their efforts. From personal experience
I know that even a little feedback before the review helps the author
immensely and helps the review process by helping the author prepare.

> That is why I
> personally did not see the incubator being considered/evaluated for my
> particular projects

Of course that's up to you

and probably not taking off on a larger scale.

Last count I believe that 50 libraries have been submitted to the
incubator. Some number of these have been accepted into boost. Of
course I'd like to see it more successful on a larger scale - but it's
not nothing.

I know that the authors who make submissions to the incubator aspire to
meet the same standards that accepted libraries do. And a good number
have been accepted. So I don't think that if the incubator were to
contain something that one needs, it would be smart to consider it as
one would an accepted boost library. The only difference is that you
you should review and test it. But wait, you should be doing with that
with accepted boost libraries as well. That's my point. Basically the
only difference between a library in the incubator and one accepted into
boost is that some small number (in some cases only two) have certified
the library for acceptance into boost. Just keep that in mind.

> Accidentally, that incubator-related view of mine does not immediately
> seem related to the original "Review quality" topic. So, it might well
> be that I was first to veer off. :-) Apologies.

Oh no - I'm always the one to veer off. I'm well known for this.

Robert Ramey

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