Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 15:38:28

Niall Douglas wrote:

> try again.

This looks good to me. The new procedure makes sense. I only have one small
nit to pick:

"Be prepared to pivot your design"

Can we please not pivot? Pivoting is awful. :-)

> And Peter, note the seconders needed is one person now.

Noted, thanks. Two was a bit steep.

This is off-topic, but I'd really appreciate if the page linked in

"Some best practices ideas with samples of script and code and links into
source code in existing Boost libraries can be found on the Boost wiki."

be reworked, made up to date, with the controversial/niche recommendations
removed. It'd be nice if it reflected practices that are unequivocally
endorsed by Boost.

Back on topic, I think that the current process of getting a library into
the review queue is a bit outdated. I suggest we make use of existing
infrastructure and make a Github repository "review" owned by the Review
Wizard in which submissions occur by way of the endorsing Boost member
creating an issue with the description of the library.

Discussion about the library, as it pertains to the review process, can then
happen inside this issue; review managers, when found, and scheduled review
dates can also be posted there, so as the progress of a library towards a
review can be conveniently tracked by people with an interest in the matter.

The file of this repo can be the current review queue.

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