El 09/07/2026 a las 17:48, Rainer Deyke via Boost escribió:
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.
Exactly, without additional info, variations on the acceptance/rejection rate can be attributed to either changes in the quality of the submissions or in the quality of the review process (or both).
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.
Another intuition, in line with yours, is that, as low hanging-fruit is scarcer, impactful contributions, both to the std library and to Boost, need to be bigger in ambition and scope [1]. This has the implication that a first attempt will have a higher chance of being incomplete or needing corrections: in the case of Boost this can be remedied, either pre-acceptance or post-, the situation with accepted standard library proposals is more complicated, and here everyone can think of their least favorite stdlib addition from C++20 onwards. Joaquín M López Muñoz [1] I'm saying this as a contributor of several fairly small Boost libraries :-)