Re: Boost.Beast state of play

From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-02 18:50:17

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 21:39, Vinnie Falco via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:28 AM Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I agree with this.
>
> That's very nice but worth precisely nothing, because you have no skin
> in the game at all. A delay means that for the next four months of SG4
> Networking meetings we will have no field experience or knowledge to
> use to negate bad ideas that are brought before the committee. It is
> worth the risk.

While I understand your concern 110% (i.e. better than you do), the
"WG21 politics" as
you call them do not constitute a reason to release a possibly
low-quality boost.
You can appeal to existing implementation experience until the cows come home,
but that alone doesn't guarantee that LEWG and WG21 end up standardizing
an existing API without modifying it. Getting into such hypothetical
plays is not
worth the aforementioned possibly-lower release quality in boost.

Boost should do what's technically and quality-wise right for Boost
users. The WG21
part of it is someone else's problem (including mine), and we don't
need shenanigans
to get WG21 to do what's technically right for standardized networking.