Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 11:37:41

> I’ve been following the conversation on the Review Schedule, and it
> seems to be converging on a nice solution. I had been thinking that
> it would be a good idea to purge the schedule and start anew. Note
> that there are some libraries have listed managers but have not been
> scheduled for review long after a manager volunteered, so it’s worth
> also double-checking libraries that have managers (minus those where
> a manager has volunteered this calendar year).

I have noticed the same thing: libraries with review managers attached
that never seem to get reviewed.

Ronald what would you think of an "expiry date" for libraries in the
review queue? So, if no review happens six months after entry, they get

> I am not fond of listing Reddit in the same class of “determine
> interest” as boost-dev and the incubator. That may be a useful place
> to get feedback, but is outside the boost community, and there are
> likely other venues to consider aside from reddit if we’re going to
> cast a wider net.

I'm surprised at the antipathy to Reddit/r/cpp. A few years ago it
wasn't worth visiting regularly, but now given the number of the C++
leadership regularly there I find myself there much more frequently than which I no longer visit much. But then I'm a populist, and
that's unlike most people here.

I've relegated the Reddit mention to a suggestion, see if you like the
new wording. If you could suggest those "likely other venues to
consider", that might be useful.

> The text on the current page candidate is stricter in tone than the
> original wording in the suggestion to the steering committee:
> "So before investing hundreds of hours of your time, use the Boost
> developers mailing list
> <>, the Boost
> Library Incubator <> and Reddit/r/cpp
> <> as forums to gauge …”
> versus
> "To find someone to endorse a new library for review, the library
> author ought to ideally canvas for a library's motivation before
> they ever begin writing or designing it, but failing that they need
> to approach boost-dev and publicise their library seeking people to
> publicly endorse it for review. Other forums work too e.g.
> reddit/r/cpp, the Incubator or anywhere else.”

You probably didn't notice, but I substantially refactored the entire
page. The previous page had lost flow and cohesion through many small
updates applied haphazardly, and interchanged multiple terms to mean the
same thing which might be confusing to the uninitiated. The progression
from the beginning of a library to its admission was not clear. I
refactored the prose to use consistent terms, with clear numbered steps
and a clear progression of submissions workflow from start to finish.

I have attempted to merge elements of the second passage into the first.
See what you think.

> I like the general tone of the latter better. It should also be made
> clear that a library should be ready for review when it goes on the
> schedule, even if more updates are planned. If a library needs a
> couple of more months to be ready for review than it should not go on
> the schedule for a couple of more months.

I've tried to match the tone, and have strengthened what review
readiness means.

> It is hard for me to compare the proposed page update to the current
> without seeing a diff, so I will look forward to seeing the pull
> request.
> All-in-all these are good ideas. Resetting the schedule is a good
> one-time thing to do, and requiring an endorsement before being added
> to the review schedule is consistent with Boost practices.

Many thanks for the feedback.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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