Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval

Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 17:05:06

On 3/20/17 8:38 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> 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.
+1
> It'd be nice if it reflected practices that are
> unequivocally endorsed by Boost.
I don't know that that is possible.
>
> 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 into the review queue is a bit outdated.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 README.md file of this repo can be the current review queue.
This would effectively be the Boost Incubator version 2 - and there is 
nothing wrong with that.  I could declare victory and retire the 
inclubator.  Accepting a library would simply be a question of changing 
it's name or moving from the "Boost Submissions" super project to the 
"Boost" super project.

The only reservation that I have about this idea is that closely couples 
Boost to Github.

I can see the appeal and merit of this idea though.  Maybe we should go 
the full monty, give up on SourceForgeand ask users to just clone the 
boost superproject to their own machine and use their own copy of git.
Then our "release procedure" would be track the testing of the master 
branch and assign a tag with a version number when it's "perfect"

Robert Ramey