Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] Proposed new policy to enter the review queue
From: Deniz Bahadir (dbahadir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-17 16:48:47
Am 17.03.2017 um 14:27 schrieb Stefan Seefeld via Boost:
> On 17.03.2017 09:12, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>> Just looking at it from a more outside point of view I would say:
>>> The Boost website does not look sexy.
>>> It looks quite old-fashioned, has a lot of text, but how that is
>>> structured is not easy to grasp by a short glimpse. And except for
>>> finding the current download and the list of current libraries it is
>>> quite hard to find particular information fast (if at all). (The GSOC)
>> You'll find plenty of this already reported in depth by me in posts
>>> Or another example is Trac.
>> Trac would provide us continuity for when that happens.
> I'm really mystified by how almost any discussion on this list
> eventually turn magically into discussions about tools. It's the boost's
> community's main fetish.
I am sorry if I made the impression I wanted to talk about switching
from Trac to Github or something like that. That was not my intention.
I only wanted to present some examples for why the different Boost
websites might appeal "unsexy" and complicated (compared to others like
Github) or at least not up-to-date. And my hypothesis was that this will
turn people of of Boost. Or at least they might not find the interesting
information (which they did not even know they wanted) like "there is an
incubator with more libraries that might be useful".
> What most people here seem to agree on is how hard it is for Boost to
> change anything. So why don't we talk about the reasons for that, and
> how to improve, rather than waste our energy on tool discussions ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk