Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Raffi Enficiaud (raffi.enficiaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 22:04:53
On 22.10.18 10:14, 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 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. 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
I agree. Especially we have more opportunities to mature things "today"
than back in 2003:
- git allowing forking, creation or PR
- platforms like Github that offers issues tracking, doc, conversation,
review all in one place
All those things existed before to some extent, but now collaboration is
easier and faster.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk