Re: [boost] [outcome] Andrzej's review

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Andrzej's review
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-26 19:59:48

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Why accepting this library when we have `expected` being standardized? I do
> not really mind having two in Boost.

I agree, we should not be rejecting libraries just because another similar
library already exists in Boost.

> First, it is ready, being proposed,
> and applied in a number of non-trivial code-bases. Niall claims that his
> trade-offs are better tailored to predictable-latency applications. I do
> not have enough knowledge to asses it. They look convincing. The only way
> to test it is to give this library the Boost blessing and have the user
> test it.

Here I disagree. If there are issues with a library, they should be
addressed before it is accepted; we should be proposing/accepting only
relatively mature libraries that have seen real, if limited, deployment.
First, this is a matter of quality standards. Secondly, fixing problems
when there already is substantial user base is messy, and often requires
further compromise.

Emil