Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-28 18:56:18

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 11:40 AM Glen Fernandes via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> +1.
>
> 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.

Raising issue on this list with the way WG21 does things accomplishes
nothing.  Our choices as a separate Boost entity are: 1) get involved
directly and individually with WG21 and fix things, for our individual
definitions of "fix"; and 2) accept the reality that WG21 actually
wants to move even faster than it already does* and make it easier for
Boost to accept new libraries before they are standardized, thereby
influencing the quality of those submissions.

* Based on polling of WG21 members at multiple WG21 meetings in the
last 2 years.

#1 relies on individual effort and ability.  Some cannot get the time
off for, or cannot afford, or cannot stand the process enough, to
attend WG21 meetings.

#2 is change we can actually effect.  The shape of that does not have
to be exactly what Jeff has proposed -- that's just one suggestion.
There is a perception among WG21 submitters that Boost is an opaque
and unwelcoming organization, whether deserved or not.  I don't
personally find it to be so, and maybe this is simply intellectual
intimidation as others in this thread have suggested.  Nevertheless,
that and certain technical considerations (Boost.Build for one)
prevent people from going through the hassle of submitting to Boost
before WG21.  I think we should focus on smoothing that process in
whatever way we think would be effective, if we want the output of
WG21 to be better, without getting directly involved with WG21.

Zach