From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-08-28 23:28:41
Michael, thank you for the thoughtful review! I hope whatever circumstances
interfered to delay it are all sorted out.
I'll make the requested changes and it'll be all ready for inclusion in the
next Boost release.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:37 PM Michael Caisse via Boost <
> I want to thank Emil for his patience for the publishing of the review
> results as life got in my way.
> Thank you Emil for submitting LEAF to be reviewed for inclusion into
> Boost. As an already-Boost-author, you knew what you were getting into
> and continued into the process. I also want to thank you for once again
> pushing our thoughts on error handling.
> This is the part everybody scrolls to the bottom to read, so letâs just
> put it at the top. Boost.LEAF is ACCEPTED into Boost. After the
> following modifications are made to the library, the repository can be
> transitioned to Boost for inclusion into the next release (with the
> release cycle timing constraints):
> Specify the TLS requirement sooner in the documentation.
> Optional usage of Boost.Config to perform all of the Boost Configy
> things. (further discussion on this below)
> Macro naming and general Boostification clean-up.
> There was a good amount of discussion about the library on both the dev
> and user mail lists. I want to personally thank those who got involved
> in the review. You make the process work!
> Result summary:
> Accept: 7
> Reject: 1
> No-decision: 3
> The no-decision reviews provided valuable input and discussion threads.
> While it would be my preference to have the review authors provide a
> final verdict, I was grateful for the time and energy they spent with
> the library and formulating thoughts into emails for discussion.
> Some comments from reviews:
> âI find function preload() really great and novel. â¦ This really makes
> the error reporting code brief, clean and bug-free.â
> âI like LEAF very much and there's a lot offered hereâ¦â
> âI like it.â
> â...it allows bridging multiple error handling strategies and usage
> patterns in an efficient way.â
> About the docs:
> âThey look good and manage to explain hard concepts in a very
> approachable fashion.â
> âThe documentation is great -- in terms of styles it's probably the best
> I've seen for a C++ library.â
> âClear, friendly and complete.â
> Some Thoughts
> While there was overwhelming consensus that LEAF should be included into
> Boost, the process is not democratic. I have spent considerable time
> understanding the concerns raised in each of the reviews and in
> particular the singular rejection.
> Emil took time responding to each of the reviews. The exchanges were
> fruitful and both âconditional acceptâ and ârejectâ reviewers changed
> their verdicts to accept along the way. Most of the concerns were
> amicably resolved. I am comfortable with the design choices and
> implementation made by the author for the remaining items.
> One reviewer brought up the re-implementation of Boost.Config type
> facilities. This of course is a complex issue for a library with zero
> dependencies. The ability to simply drop the Boost.LEAF directory into a
> project and run is a definite plus for a specific user segment. Being
> able to modify a single Boost.Config repository to support
> WackyCompiler14 targeting LEG Core and get a bunch of libraries for the
> ride is also a plus. Emil and I have discussed these concerns and the
> best choice seems to be defaulting to zero dependencies and the option
> to pull in Boost.Config to provide configuration type facilities if needed.
> Accepting a library into Boost is as much about the library as it is
> bringing the author into a group. While Emil is already part of the
> author crowd, it was clear to me through his careful, informative, and
> patient responses that the addition of Boost.LEAF brings professional
> maturity that strengthens the community.
> A user with more than a year of experience with the library voted
> acceptance based on the âqualities of the library itself and the
> responsiveness and openness for feedback of its author.â
> Throughout the review period, Emil integrated feedback to both the
> documentation and code in another branch. It was wonderful to see the
> community provide input and the author respond so quickly to produce a
> better final result.
> Thank you Emil for your vision of better error handling and striving to
> bring us along!
> Michael Caisse
> Ciere Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk