Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-05 06:22:43

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:39 PM Thomas Fowlery <thomas.fowlery.yes_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> The design may be "good enough" and it might "work", but is this the
> standard Boost is aspiring to?
>

I wondered about this myself, back in March of 2024 when I posted this to
the mailing list:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2024/03/256333.php

However I have been informed that the criteria for accepting a library into
Boost something more along these lines:

    * That the library is useful, and
    * Boost is better off with the library than without

This would appear to be at odds with your implication that Boost
submissions should aspire to more. Klemens position has been consistent and
he stated it as a reply all the way back in March:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/03/256335.php

He is technically not wrong, although based on the conversations after the
review result for async-mqtt5 was posted it seems that there are
differences of opinion as to what is the criteria for evaluating whether a
library should be part of Boost or not. Interestingly my expectation that
my post from March would stimulate a robust discussion about acceptance
criteria was never satisfied, and perhaps this is the opportunity to
catalyze that discussion again.

What do you think are the qualities that should be found in a library
submission during a formal review which would make it suitable to become
part of Boost? Happy to hear from you Thomas, and everyone else.

Thanks