Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-08 22:48:05

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:37 PM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 1:26 PM Klemens Morgenstern <
> klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Should I have rejected boost.url, which had the same amount of
>> reviews?
>
>
> Perhaps, you could have, and it would not have bothered me in the
> slightest, because Boost.URL *already had users* and there were more coming
> every day. In other words Boost.URL offered such compelling usability and
> utility that it did not *need* to be part of the official Boost
> distribution in order for other projects
>

This got cut off, here is the full text:

Perhaps, you could have, and it would not have bothered me in the
slightest, because Boost.URL *already had users* and there were more coming
every day. In other words Boost.URL offered such compelling usability and
utility that it did not *need* to be part of the official Boost
distribution in order for other projects to incorporate it and use it in
informal and commercial projects.

I want to be clear here, the practice of "we need to accept it into Boost
to get users and find out if its any good" to be a harmful idea that
carries significant reputational risk. There is no stated policy which
describes whether or not this practice is valid for determining acceptance
in a review, which is itself a problem (lack of a clear written
instructions on how reviewers should evaluate libraries), and the reason
that I am having to make these posts. It might be that such a policy would
be detrimental as it would be too much of a hard and fast rule, and the
question is best determined on a case by case bases. In that scenario I
believe that Boost.Klemens.Async is one such case.

Thanks