Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: pbristow_at_[hidden]
Date: 2020-06-29 09:15:44

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via Boost
> Sent: 29 June 2020 06:40
> To: boost_at_[hidden] List <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] [OT] Re: Boost, not LEWG
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:22 PM Schrom, Brian T via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > My suggestion  is....
> 
> Yeah mailing lists are nice for the monotonically decreasing set of older engineers used to the
> anachronism but they are not in any way shape or form attractive for bringing in new, young blood.

As one no longer in the first flush of youth (and I suspect a target of this barb 😉 ), I'm not sure that this is the most important issue.

We seem to have shifted to CVS, SVN and now GIT and GitHub a little ahead of the curve (and I note that GitHub gives you an email interface as well as a web one).

I suspect that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  applies to the mailing list/forum issue. 

I think that the key problem with reviews in finding people who are knowledgeable enough to make useful comments.  Often users are best-informed we can get.

Too many reviews are theoretical analyses, not based on any 'real-life' use that would expose strengths and weaknesses.

There has long been a chicken and egg issue, you don't get many users until a library is in Boost, and so you don't get much informed feedback.  I still favor some sort of 'Candidate' status, formalizing the current 'Acceptance subject to changes' status, but giving wider visibility on the Boost GitHub site.

Boost has spawned several standards, but also provided many libraries that are entirely unsuitable for standardization.  I hope this will continue.

Paul Bristow

PS I have always been impressed by the overwhelmingly politeness of interchanges on Boost and WG21 etc, in contrast to the internet in general.
I believe that Boost is also entirely gender and color-blind.