Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 14:37:43
On 10/22/18 1:14 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 00:09 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> On 10/21/18 11:33 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:51 Robert Ramey via Boost
>> Right, I'm sure that boost would be willing to review any such libraries
>> when they are submitted.
> I'm proposing to relax the review requirements for those libraries. Include
> them even if the Boost feedback was "need more work". Simplify the review
We already do this. Some libraries have been "accepted" with conditions
which have entailed a long time - some times years to meet. The lastest
instance is the safe numerics library. This was accepted. But the
review revealed problems which took 18 months to fix (and still not
> We should give users and library authors a simple way to meet and interact.
> Boost is a perfect platform for establishing existing practice and ensuring
> library quality.
I think we have this and I think it's the key feature of boost.
Requirements (testing, docs, etc.) a review processes. No other option
> Let's not loose it because of the exhausting review
> process that requires a lot of time and scares of some of the authors. If
> the library accepted into C++ or Library Fundamentals - then it was already
Maybe the library interface, but certainly not the rest of it: code,
docs, tests, etc. BTW, what would be the point of implementing a
library accepted into C++ - Won't that be implemented by the vendor anyway?
> Another idea: how about dropping the "review manager" requirement? Allow
> library author to manage the review and require a separate manager only if
> the votes for library inclusion are doubtful or there's less than N votes.
If an author finds boost requirements to onerous, he should just upload
it to github. He doesn't have to follow Boost at all. He can even get
it reviewed by reddit/cpp/review - https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp_review/
. No need for Boost at all if it's to much of a problem.
Personally, I think the requirements to be accepted into boost too loose
and we should raise them to an even higher standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk