Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Takatoshi Kondo (redboltz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-28 23:56:43

2024年7月28日(日) 19:17 Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 3:49 PM Takatoshi Kondo via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Let me clarify the status of async_mqtt. I am ready for the formal
> > review and I informed my review manager, Robert Ramey, on June 21st.
> > As the author of one of the libraries, I will leave the management of
> > the review process up to the review managers. I trust that the process
> > will be conducted fairly.
> >
>
> Do you think fairness requires a simultaneous review with mireo/async_mqtt5 ?
> Or would a regular review of just your library suffice?

Robert is working on solving the issue, so I think that I should wait
for his result.
However, sharing my idea might help.

Vinnie Falco wrote the following in this thread on May 21, 2024, at 12:28 AM:

> However, upon discussions with high reputable sources (basically Peter
> Dimov), the criteria for "what belongs in Boost" is that "a library is
> useful." Applying this metric, I would think that if both MQTT libraries
> are useful then they should both be reviewed with the potential for
> acceptance.

I agree with this idea.
Therefore, the possible outcomes are four combinations: both libraries
accepted, one library accepted, or both libraries rejected.

If the formal reviews are conducted separately, the first review's
outcome shouldn't affect the second one.
If this independence is guaranteed, I think it would be fair.

Let me explain an unfair hypothetical scenario example:
The first library is accepted, but the second one is rejected because
"Boost already has that functionality."
This would be unfair.

---
Regards,
Takatoshi Kondo