Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 21:56:18

On 11/28/23 4:54 PM, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 3:35 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>>
>> FWIW. The Boost Library Incubator accepted Boost Library proposals long
>> in advance of any formal review.
>>
> ..
> 
>>
>> Although I thought it was a good idea addressing real issues, it failed
>> to get the traction I hoped for it.  Maintaining the web pages (in PHP)
>> was also a major pain.  Just one more failure in my life.  Oh well.
>>
> 
> FWIW I think the idea still has merit. But it might need to 'come with
> teeth' - like you're not in Boost without going into the incubator first.

I hoped that things would evolve to that point.  But it needed to be 
sold first - hence the version I made.

> And maybe it should be more than some repos -- like an actual distribution
> that could overlay a boost release with the libraries that are part of the
> incubator. 

This conflicts with my vision of a "modular" boost.  I would hope that 
if our norms about boost rules were a little more formal (Concepts) we 
could create libraries which didn't have to be part of boost to 
function.  The we could just a a library at will and be on our way. 
This would work for nich libraries and questionable libraries like those 
in the incubator. The library could be dropped just by deleting it. 
This seems like it should be possible since no other library will depend 
on the inclubator/nitch library.  Maybe were already there.  But our 
build/test/documentation infrastructure doesn't encourage this type of 
modularity.

It turns out that many/most of the submissions were not even close to 
boost quality.  And those that were, didn't really require the incubator 
to get accepted.  It also required altering the test/build/documentation 
infrastructure to work well.  That is, it sort of required that "modular 
boost" be more of a reality than it currently is.

  It should be included in the test infrastructure to demonstrate
> (or not) the metal of the library. Think of it like std::experimental --
> it's boost::experimental basically.  The other aspect I liked was the
> mentoring of new authors -- we really need more of that.

Yep - all of that.

> 
>> PHP...major pain
> 
> yes, it should be retooled to rid us of PHP madness...
> 
> Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost