Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-15 09:51:56
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 14 March 2017 22:36
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Edward Diener
> Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
> On 3/14/2017 8:01 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> > Dear Boost,
> > I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have
> > exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed
> > libraries awaiting a review.
> I am certainly not against paying programmers for valuable work, even if
> that "work" is managing a Boost review. I am afraid, however, that
> paying a review manager might mean that someone will take on the task
> who is not qualified for it simply because money is being offered.
I'd offer to manage a review, but I rarely feel qualified (and usually then there are others much better qualified). Money isn't
going to help with that :-(
Although I'm not against paying on 'moral' grounds if that would really help. We could offer money, but be very careful about who
we give it to.
I still favor some halfway house, a bit like BLincubator (though I didn't like the way it works much), so stuff can be better tried
'in anger' by far more people or more platforms - and most important refined (especially documentation).
PS I still do not favour gratuitously removing support for older compilers, but strongly support new libraries (or 'Son of ...' v2,
v3 updates) that *only* support the newer/newest compilers.