Re: [boost] [review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-14 15:24:34

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 14/05/2017 12:54, Glen Fernandes wrote:
>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>>> The code has a "boost-lite" submodule. Is that part of the review?
>>>
>>> However if accepted then Outcome would gain a Boost.Build
>>> veneer and be auto generated by script from the standalone Outcome same
>>> as Boost.ASIO is, and so I figure none of that is in scope for this review.
>>
>> Any part of the implementation is in scope for the review, and if
>> "Boost-lite" is not an already reviewed and accepted Boost library,
>> then aren't reviewers allowed to review its implementation (since it
>> is effectively part of the submission)?
>
> About a year ago when I was considering whether to invest the
> considerable effort to bring Outcome into a Boost ready form I asked
> here about internal sublibraries.
>
> Apparently some years ago they were common enough in submitted new Boost
> libraries, and indeed some internal sublibraries went on to later become
> Boost libraries in their own right.
>
> We should proceed here with the Outcome review the same way as it was
> with those preceding cases. Whatever the precedent is.
>
> (I'm not sure what the exact precedent is, whomever knows for sure
> please speak, but be aware that most of the dependency on boost-lite is
> substitutable for Boost proper)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You're submitting a library
for review. Everything in the library is subject to review - the
design, the implementation, the documentation, the tests.

The implementation of Outcome includes something called boost-lite
right now. Reviewers are allowed to review any files in this
boost-lite, just as they review any implementation detail of Outcome,
right?

i.e. There's no difference to them between reviewing
boost::outcome::x, boost::outcome::detail::y, boost_lite::z,
boost_lite::detail::t

If so, we're on the same page. We're on different pages if you're
asserting that reviewers not be allowed to review boost_lite::z or
boost_lite::detail::t in order to determine whether Outcome has an
acceptable implementation for Boost.

Glen