Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-29 01:56:18

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 6:50 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 8:26 PM Glen Fernandes via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > The concrete items mentioned that have been known to inhibit
> > participation appear to be:
> > - Mailing lists
> > - Boost.Build
> >
> > Not sure what to do about the second.
> >
>
> It's easy.. Make it abundantly clear that a build system, *any* build
> system, is expected or required for review. And one way to do that is to
> *require* no build system for review. Because if your library can be
> reviewed easily without a build system it means the portability of your
> code is good. Anything else should be a red flag for reviewers.
>
>
> PS. I'll keep living the dream when we don't distribute any build system
> with our libraries. Or the alternate dream where we distribute with 5 or
> more alternate build system specifications.

Perhaps we should require travis and appveyor for review, and nothing else.