From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-05 20:23:04
On 10/5/20 11:41 AM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 19:58, Hadriel Kaplan <hadrielk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> boost.org should have its own forum, instead of mailing lists. And
>>>> when there is a formal review, the wizards create a subforum
>>>> specifically for the review. Thus all posts and discussion relevant to
>>>> the review will be categorized / organized into one subforum which
>>>> after 3 months is then moved from "Recent Reviews" to "Archived
>>>> Reviews" where they become available and viewable in perpetuity.
>>> We have been incapable of pushing the idea of paying for
>>> CI services forward for year+, where money is no issue, I hear,
>>> that would impose zero maintenance cost on Boost folks.
>>> And, you are proposing to set up a new piece of infrastructure,
>>> with accounts, security, that will also require moderation, etc.
>>> Although I really like the idea, I can't see it feasible.
>> Just thinking out of the box, and this may be a horrible idea, butâ¦ what if you created a new `boostorg-proposed` account on GitHub, where every proposed library gets moved into as a separate repo, before their review starts.
>> Then each individual review can be a GitHub issue for that, and comments to each review can be comments inside that review-issue.
>> People can then subscribe or not to the specific proposal repos for issues and changes.
>> And the reviews and their comments live in perpetuity (or as long as GitHub does I suppose).
>> If the proposal is accepted, then the repo is copied/cloned into `boostorg` as it is today, and a link is added to the readme.md pointing to that library's proposal repo for finding reviews and their comments.
>> The âinfrastructureâ aspect is then already in-place.
> I'll leave it to Robert Ramey to comment if that would solve the
> issues he pointed out.
I noted the boost library incubator had this facility.
But the whole thing could be simplified by using a lot of the
functionality of github. It's also possible that reviews and results
could be posted as issues to the library in github. This would give the
result of maintaining review history which started this thread in the
In general, the boost library incubator could be streamlined and
simplified if someone wanted to do that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk