On 7/9/26 15:15, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
If you start from the bottom of the review results page and work up you'll see large streaks of acceptances in short time periods [1].
While that's true, it's also true that many of those early submissions went on to become some of the most fundamental parts of the C++ standard library. An argument can therefore be made that the quality of Boost *submissions* has gone down, and this is reflected in both a higher rejections rate and in lower quality libraries being accepted. What I think is happening is that as both Boost and the standard library are maturing, most of the obvious gaps in the library space are being filled, leaving fewer opportunities for great uncontroversial general-purpose libraries. So we get libraries that are either highly specialized or only incremental improvements on what came before them. -- Rainer Deyke - rainerd@eldwood.com