Re: [boost] Boost, not LEWG
-----Original Message----- From: Boost <boost-bounces@lists.boost.org> On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via Boost Sent: 29 June 2020 06:40 To: boost@lists.boost.org List <boost@lists.boost.org> Cc: Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [boost] [OT] Re: Boost, not LEWG
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:22 PM Schrom, Brian T via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
My suggestion is....
Yeah mailing lists are nice for the monotonically decreasing set of older engineers used to the anachronism but they are not in any way shape or form attractive for bringing in new, young blood.
As one no longer in the first flush of youth (and I suspect a target of this barb 😉 ), I'm not sure that this is the most important issue. We seem to have shifted to CVS, SVN and now GIT and GitHub a little ahead of the curve (and I note that GitHub gives you an email interface as well as a web one). I suspect that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it." applies to the mailing list/forum issue. I think that the key problem with reviews in finding people who are knowledgeable enough to make useful comments. Often users are best-informed we can get. Too many reviews are theoretical analyses, not based on any 'real-life' use that would expose strengths and weaknesses. There has long been a chicken and egg issue, you don't get many users until a library is in Boost, and so you don't get much informed feedback. I still favor some sort of 'Candidate' status, formalizing the current 'Acceptance subject to changes' status, but giving wider visibility on the Boost GitHub site. Boost has spawned several standards, but also provided many libraries that are entirely unsuitable for standardization. I hope this will continue. Paul Bristow PS I have always been impressed by the overwhelmingly politeness of interchanges on Boost and WG21 etc, in contrast to the internet in general. I believe that Boost is also entirely gender and color-blind.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:16 AM Paul A Bristow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
As one no longer in the first flush of youth (and I suspect a target of this barb 😉 ), I'm not sure that this is the most important issue.
My point is that the technical discussions (including the formal reviews) on the mailing list are a wonderful resource that casual observers have no way to see because it is locked up behind a mailing list. Boost can't leverage these discussions by linking to them in a news feed, highlighting popular discussions, attaching flair based on their participation, and so on and so forth. Imagine if StackOverflow was a mailing list instead. Yes I realize that there are mirrors but that is not even close to the same thing. The Boost organization has no editorial control over a mirror, and it isn't even under a domain that has brand recognition. Regards
Vinnie Falco wrote:
My point is that the technical discussions (including the formal reviews) on the mailing list are a wonderful resource that casual observers have no way to see because it is locked up behind a mailing list. Boost can't leverage these discussions by linking to them in a news feed, highlighting popular discussions, attaching flair based on their participation, and so on and so forth. Imagine if StackOverflow was a mailing list instead.
The purpose of this mailing list is to coordinate and aid Boost development, not to be Stack Overflow. This is not something unique to Boost; most open source projects use mailing lists for that. If you want Stack Overflow, you know where to find it.
Vinnie Falco wrote:
My point is that the technical discussions (including the formal reviews) on the mailing list are a wonderful resource that casual observers have no way to see because it is locked up behind a mailing list. Boost can't leverage these discussions by linking to them in a news feed, highlighting popular discussions, attaching flair based on their participation, and so on and so forth. Imagine if StackOverflow was a mailing list instead.
Yes I realize that there are mirrors but that is not even close to the same thing. The Boost organization has no editorial control over a mirror, and it isn't even under a domain that has brand recognition.
The final phrase about the domain makes me wonder if you're unaware of https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/ ; it is available to "casual observers", could be linked to from anywhere, and has Boost "branding". Or do you not mean the Boost brand when you say "brand recognition"? - do you want a more recognised brand like github or stackoverflow or google or something? Regards, Phil.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:34 AM Phil Endecott via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The final phrase about the domain makes me wonder if you're unaware of https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/ ; it is available to "casual observers",
I did not know about that, thanks. Yes by brand I mean "under boost.org." Regards
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:23 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:16 AM Paul A Bristow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
As one no longer in the first flush of youth (and I suspect a target of this barb ), I'm not sure that this is the most important issue.
My point is that the technical discussions (including the formal reviews) on the mailing list are a wonderful resource that casual observers have no way to see because it is locked up behind a mailing list.
Nothing is locked, the discussion is public.
Il lun 29 giu 2020, 11:16 Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> ha scritto:
Boost has spawned several standards, but also provided many libraries that are entirely unsuitable for standardization. I hope this will continue.
Paul Bristow
PS I have always been impressed by the overwhelmingly politeness of interchanges on Boost and WG21 etc, in contrast to the internet in general. I believe that Boost is also entirely gender and color-blind.
I am a long time boost user and subscriber to this mailing list, even if I never authored a boost library. That said, since the topic is on the relevance of boost for the future and how it is perceived, I take the liberty to add my 2 cents, for what they are worth. I may be oldish (I still feel young inside) and I see the points raised in favour of more "modern" approaches but I think that *this specific* ml is still working. I suspect that the reason is in no small part due to Paul's observation re: politeness and the continued effort to argue on technical merits. This ml is without doubt the place where I have learnt and continue to learn the most about c++ and software design in general. The only inherent flaw in the "mailing list medium" is the difficulty of tracking the subject changes in the headers, but I don't think that switching to a forum or to a "social network" like stackoverflow would change that. For me, I would probably not have the time to browse such a platform (I fully acknowledge that if more people feel differently this could be a net positive!). In short: please continue with a rigorous review process, without relaxing the standards! I promise that the next time that a library where I am not a complete ignorant is proposed will try to add my review. It will surely be short and not as deep as many of you are able to provide, but Boost has excellent review managers who are able to make something of every contribution. Best, Francesco
participants (6)
-
Emil Dotchevski -
Francesco Guerrieri -
pbristow＠hetp.u-net.com -
Peter Dimov -
Phil Endecott -
Vinnie Falco