Subject: Re: [boost] [histogram] Finalising version for submission
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 15:21:06
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:29, Peter Dimov via Boost
> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 15:45, Alexander Grund via Boost<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > > So I would like to raise the requirement for the final library from
> > > > C++11 to C++14.
> > >
> > > There was currently discussion about "switching to C++11" on the list
> > > and an often brought argument was "the library maintainer is free to
> > > raise the requirement at any time" and "there are already Boost.Libs
> > > requiring C++11/14/17".
> > Folks,
> > If this is indeed a generally accepted practice, can we have it documented
> > on the website, please?
> It's not.
> "At any time" is not generally accepted to include the time between the
> review and the appearance of the library in Boost, _unless the review
> manager and the people who gave positive reviews don't object_.
AFAICT, post-review role of a review manager is not documented anywhere.
Since I happened to be RM once or twice, I'm interested in any formal
procedures I might have be missing.
> Something close to what was accepted is generally expected to appear in at
> least one Boost release. Bait and switch would not be fair to the reviewers
> and does not strike me as a particularly defensible practice.
This makes sense, of course, and a typical sequence of events is roughly:
3. Released as accepted
4. Development continues, and authors "are free to change your library
in any way you wish (...)
are also encouraged to get feedback from the boost community before
making substantial changes to the interface of an accepted library."
5. Released as developed
6. Repeat 4-5
I learn as I go, I confess.
In the spirit to "be fair to the reviewers" indeed,
I would encourage you to first release C++11 version of Histogram,
stick it to `master` and then move on with C++14 in `develop`.
Perhaps you could even manage to get the first release ready for...
this Wednesday :-) that is, when Boost 1.69.0 closed for new libraries
I feel bad about being late with the announcement of the review results
- I have missed the Boost 1.69 dates myself completely.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk