Boost logo

Boost :

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-28 16:39:47

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:24 PM Vinnie Falco wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 4:36 PM Jeff Garland wrote:
> > Being in std:: really is the ultimate c++ distro.
> Yes well this attitude needs to change as it is obviously
> unsustainable. Lowering Boost's acceptance bar doesn't sound like a
> good way to solve this.


Boost is a peer reviewed collection of libraries. Boost's success has
come from that peer review.

Just because Boost.X was peer reviewed and has built user trust,
sticking a "Boost." in front of "Y" to form "Boost.Y" just because Y
is proposed for the standard isn't right.

If "Y" wants to be part of Boost and be "Boost.Y", it should be
formally reviewed.

Now if you want to have "BoostExperimental.Y" then make a new project
called BoostExperimental but let's not shovel anything into the Boost
release distribution that wasn't peer reviewed.

If the problem being solved is unacceptable things being put into the
C++ standard library, and the idea is having them go through Boost
first, I like that. But that should mean going through Boost's formal
review process. Not being exempt just because they were proposed for
the standard.

The pathological case scenario is Boost's reputation and quality being
diminished and consequently Boost not being a viable means for those
proposed libraries to get user experience anyway.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at