Re: [Boost-users] boost process : how to use it

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost process : how to use it
From: David Hauck (davidh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-09 15:08:01

On Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:05 PM, Boost-users wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:10 AM, David Hauck <davidh_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 	Hi Marshall,
> 	On Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:51 AM, Boost-users wrote:
> 		On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:32 AM, David Hauck <davidh_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 			On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:44 AM, Boost-users
> wrote:
> 				Hi,
> 
> 				What is the status of boost:process, when looking on internet you
> 				can find different version that are more or less compatible.
> 				Not an ideal situation and I am a bit surprised that this lib
> 				doesn't get more love from c++ dev.
> 
> 			<snip>
> 
> 			I'm also curious why this library hasn't been integrated into the
> 			standard
> 
> 		set of Boost libraries. Would someone be kind enough to provide some
> 		(current) background on the latest thinking/status of this?
> 
> 		Because it has not yet been accepted into Boost.
> 
> 	Ya, I figured that ;).
> 
> 		It was reviewed a couple years ago, and rejected (for good reasons).
> 
> 	OK, this is part of what I was looking for: where would I find the 
> results of that review?
> 
> In the boost-developer's mailing list archives.
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/03/178147.php
> 
> [ Really, you should read the discussion - though it was a couple 
> hundred messages. The review result is an attempt to summarize. ] 
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/
> 
> 		Boris has spent a lot of time reworking the library, and plans to 
> resubmit it for review.
> 
> 	...and this is the second part of what I was looking for. Does anyone 
> have any idea of timeframe for this? I realize the review process time 
> frame is somewhat indeterminate, but wondered about the nominal time 
> for review of a library of this size/complexity and also any 
> approximation for the time frame for re-submission?
> 
> That's a question for Boris to answer ;-)

Thanks Marshall.