Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] Status of cmake support.
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-24 17:52:12
On 23 February 2018 at 17:43, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On 2/23/18 2:35 AM, Hans Dembinski via Boost wrote:
>> I would be happy to fill the role of review manager for BCM, although I
>> am not sure if I fulfil the criterion of an "active boost member" already
>> If that refers to someone who maintains a library in boost, I do not
>> pass. If it includes someone who has been around for a while, participated
>> in discussions, submitted a patch to boost (I admit, it was a really small
>> one), and has a proposed library in the review queue, then I could do it.
> Personally, I'm thinking an active boost member is someone who has spent
> significant time interacting on the mailing lists and whose posts
> demonstrate the appropriate temperament, detachment, maturity, C++ and
> other technical competence. I'm no sure how to assess though. My only
> idea would be for those who have some opinion and/or knowledge on the
> potential reviewer to send a private email to ron garcia - our long time,
> well respected review wizard who schedules the reviews.
> In general, I would like to encourage wider participation in boost by
> those who may not be able to justify the commitment that making a library
> requires. An example of a "good thing" is the github PR system which has
> permited many more people to make small but very valuable contributions.
Wasn't there a recent discussion about adding some constraints for review
managers, to require them to have at least published or maintain one of the
I can't find documentation about this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk