Re: [Boost] [Describe] Summary Review Summary

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-18 21:03:29

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:08 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2021 18:02, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>
> > If your goal is standardization, convincing the users is utterly
irrelevant
> > to success. Worse, it is a lose-lose proposition, you might get one and
a
> > half stars on GitHub which doesn't look too good. I remember Niall
giving
> > (good) advice that if the goal is standardization, it is best to not
bother
> > with a Boost review, either: it adds a lot more work that is irrelevant
to
> > achieving your goal, plus you risk rejection which doesn't look too
good.
>
> That's not _quite_ what I advised, though it is close.
>
> My advice was, and always has been, that the most valuable aspect of
> Boost _to the library_ and its author is the peer review. A high quality
> review is quite literally priceless - it cannot be bought for money.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, and I still think your advice is
sound if the goal is standardization, and as far as I remember it was
predicated on that. Obviously peer review is great.

> I skipped Boost and went straight to WG21 with LLFIO, and I feel very
> guilty about it.

You can always request a Boost Review. If successful, the library gets
enormous distribution which may actually make it more accessible than
waiting for it to arrive in STL.