- Boost - lists.boost.org

Formal Review Retrospective
by Vinnie Falco 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Ironically, a robust discussion regarding the review process and the usage of Slack is now taking place... on Slack. Arnaud made this suggestion which I am reposting here: "... formalizing a "Retrospective" phase as an actual part of the Formal Review could be key in avoiding criticism against the process to leak into criticism against the proposed library." I think this is a great idea. After each formal review result is announced, there is a new "retrospective" thread started which allows the community to reply and weigh in on how they thought the review was conducted. This actually happened organically in the last review of async-mqtt5 and I think it could be enhanced if the review wizard or review manager had pre-emptively started a retrospective thread where the replies could be accumulated. The subject line could for example be "[async-mqtt5] Review Retrospective" What do you think? Thanks

8 22

[fsa] Current status of Fiscal Sponsor Agreement
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

Hi everyone, From the Fiscal Sponsorship Committee, we'd like to share with you the current status of the creation of the new Fiscal Sponsor Agreement for Boost: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMvWJi0guPCVI_YSD86FTgTMpf69lGiwRs0lgAa… We'll be sending periodic updates on this issue. Don't hesitate to ask about any doubt you may have. Best, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz The Fiscal Sponsorship Committee

1 0

async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED
by Klemens Morgenstern 09 Nov '24

09 Nov '24

Hi all, thanks to everyone participating in the review! I really want to express my appreciation to the reviewers, especially those who invested multiple hours if not days to review this library: thank you Vinnie, Ruben, Mohammad and Marcelo. I interpreted Darylls review as a "weak rejection", but since that doesn't exist in the formal review process I'll count it as a rejection. Leaving the recommendations at 1 ACCEPT 3 CONDITIONAL ACCEPT 2 REJECT The actual conditions for acceptance are: 1. Correct usage of the executor. It is an asio contract that the async operation always completes on the associated executor and mqtt5 should follow this. 2. Add logging/reporting facilities. A user should be able to follow what is happening internally and ideally react to it, especially concerning reconnects. I also recommend the authors to review all the comments, including the rejections (Daryll's review had interesting details) and non-review comments such as from Peter Turcan. I would also advise that inclusion in boost is usually a time to change the name, because the library now gains the boost. prefix. I.e. boost.async-mqtt5 might be a bit cumbersome. Also note that there is no time requirement to include this library in boost in the next release. Thanks again to everyone participating in the review and to Ivica & Mireo for their submission.

15 47

Slack and Formal Reviews
by Vinnie Falco 09 Nov '24

09 Nov '24

We need to solve the problem of review conversations taking place on Slack instead of the list. I would ultimately love a technical solution that allows discussions to also happen on Slack in a way that preserves the integrity of the review, and that might not be practical right this second. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. Formal review announcement will remind participants that conversations should happen on the list (and specifically mention that Slack should not be used) 2. If a Slack conversation is initiated during the review period, the review manager and library submitter will politely remind folks to move the discussion to the list. Perhaps some copy and pasting will be needed. 3. Periodic reminder from the review manager during the review process, if things get out of hand. 4. We explore ideas for how to incorporate other platforms into the review process. Mailing list participation is down, yet Slack participation is up. Ideally we figure out how to harness change instead of taking on losing battles. -- Regards, Vinnie Follow me on GitHub: https://github.com/vinniefalco

1 0

Shared memory path to custom path
by Murali Kishore 08 Nov '24

08 Nov '24

Hi all, Is it possible to change the shared memory segment path from /dev/shm to other directory ex. /tmp/shm_file instead of /dev/shm/shm_file. Regards, Murali Kishore

3 4

[release] Boost 1.87.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate is available
by Marshall Clow 08 Nov '24

08 Nov '24

Available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.87.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 26f987635320854a141a8c9c3750eb6f01edb6eb75df9454726c4a03724b2472 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3712ead87a26ae5b8ee7dcf0c180e4c27f58e50bd32f14d77e8e04bf6a13ae51 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.zip e6b047e06369392241f8574a5cc1b6aa493819aa498276654477e3a08bc94167 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.7z deff255d96e11760f728f5f90785b138fff93f6c9a3ab24664710211a41614ad boost_1_87_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. -- The Release Managers

4 6

[Release] Master branch is now closed for the beta release
by Marshall Clow 07 Nov '24

07 Nov '24

Master is closed for all changes. See the release schedule at: https://www.boost.org/development/index.html -- Release managers

1 0

[release] Master branch closes for the 1.87.0 beta release on WEDNESDAY
by Ion Gaztañaga 05 Nov '24

05 Nov '24

Calendar is here: https://www.boost.org/development/ — The Release Managers

1 0

Bringing Boost.Array up to date?
by Peter Dimov 05 Nov '24

05 Nov '24

I recently needed to make use of std::array in a constexpr context, and was rudely informed by the compilers that a lot of its features are only constexpr in C++17 (non-const access) or even C++20 (operator==). This makes the standard std::array not very useful in C++14 constexpr code. Ordinarily, the way we deal with such problems is to shadow the standard component in Boost.Compat and backport all features introduced in later standards. But in this specific case, we already have boost::array, and it makes no sense to introduce another one. boost::array, however, looks mostly abandoned. The thinking there was probably that it's rendered entirely obsolete by std::array, and that no further development is warranted or required. But as outlined above, this is not the case; there's still value in maintaining boost::array and keeping it up to date. I'd like to do something about that. If Array's current maintainer, Marshall, agrees, I'd like to take over the maintenance of Boost.Array and do the usual thing - port the documentation to AsciiDoc, expand the test suite, add the necessary BOOST_CONSTEXPR/BOOST_CXX14_CONSTEXPR annotations, add the features introduced by later standards such as deduction guides and to_array, deprecate/remove the nonstandard parts of boost::array that are no longer relevant in 2024, and so on. Comments?

2 1

[release] The 1.87.0 release will close for major changes WEDNESDAY
by Ion Gaztañaga 05 Nov '24

05 Nov '24

Calendar here: https://www.boost.org/development/ Next deadline: The master branch will close for the beta next Wednesday. — The release managers

4 4