Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-15 19:21:33

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 12:47 PM Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> niedz., 15 wrz 2024 o 20:35 Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>>
>> Zach Laine wrote:
>> > The one time I managed to cajole someone [from WG21] into
>> > [submitting a library for] a Boost review,
>> > it was rejected because people didn't see the point of it.  I'm still
>> > not sure why that was.
>>
>> I'll note that I wrote a review where I could not justify accepting
>> it, and all of my points had nothing to do with "didn't see the point
>> of it"
>> https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2019/06/246514.php
>
>
> I, on the other hand, felt that there was insufficient motivation offered to justify the addition of the library.
> I face this problem with many reviews. A proposal says, "Here's what I wrote, do you accept it?" and there is no motivation saying what problem it is solving, if the problem is worth solving, are there alternative ways of solving the problem.
> In other words, I expect of an author, not only the implementation and tests and documentation, but also having done research. This is a lot to expect. I can imagine why people do not want to go through all this.

Right.  All those responses are valid.  My point was not that the
review outcome was problematic.  My point was that the Boost review
process and the WG21 review process have fundamentally different aims.
Boost wants the best C++ libraries that appeal to its reviewers.  WG21
wants to make sure something is appropriate for the standard.  Those
are similar, and even overlapping, but fundamentally different goals.

Note that this was all in the context of answering Andrzej's question
about why WG21 has not sent many library entities to Boost for review.
The context was not, "Boost sux lol." :)

Zach