Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-08 17:17:50

On 10/8/20 8:38 AM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 12:51, Benedek Thaler via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Thanks to all of you who participated in the formal review of PFR,
>> henceforth known as Boost.PFR, and Antony Polukhin for submitting this
>> magical library.
> Benedek,
> Thank you for your act as the review manager.
>> PFR is ACCEPTed into Boost, with the following results:
>> ACCEPT: 5 votes
>> REJECT: 0 votes
>> After all these changes have been implemented, Antony would really
>> like to have a mini-review, regardless that the library is already
>> ACCEPTed, further confirming his high standards.

I think the custom has been:

1. reviewer accepts the library.
2. usually subject to some conditions.
3. the final version with the conditions met is merged into boost.

Boost rules don't require that a library be in "finished form" to be
reviewed. The author should submit enough working implementation so a
decision can be arrived at. The motivation is to make library
submission no more onerous then necessary. As far as I know, we haven'
t had a formal requirement for review of the final product.
Intuitively, I would think there should be such a requirement, but
really, it hasn't seemed necessary.

Sooo - I would say anthony should just finish up the library in a way
which addresses the review managers conditions. If he want's to have
someone comment on the "final" version, he can just ask.
Then merge it into the boost develop branch.

As author of two boost libraries, I can offer a little perspective.

My first submission back in 2003 was the boost serialization library.
Many people found fault with it and it soundly rejected after "spirited"
discussion. I then re did it and submitted it again a year later. (I
am a glutton for punishment). I was accepted and eventually incorporated
into boost.

My second offering is the safe numerics library. It had some loose ends
but was considered sufficiently implemented to accept. And so it was.
Apparently, it was not that interesting for enough people to craft
objections to. WHat happened next?

You guessed it. cleaning up the "loose ends", unraveled the whole
library implementation. Even worse, it impacted that type requirements
(concepts) which the library specified. It was almost like starting
from scratch again. About the only thing left unscathed was the
documentation. When I got it back together, I merged into boost
development branch. .... and the it is. No one objected to this. In
fact, no one even noticed. Did I do the right thing? Should I have asked
for another review? You decide. I'm wondering if it got accepted in
large part due the documentation. As usual, I don't have point here -
just like to keep the pot boiling.

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at