Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-25 15:19:44

On 8/25/15 4:37 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:

> IMO what we are deciding is if we want this software to be developed
> and maintained, not, as some mistakenly imagine, if it is finished >
> and complete ready to go into the 1.60 release. It isn’t and won’t be
> until 1.61 at the very earliest, and will still be modified after > >
> release because

> It is using cutting edge tools.

> It is breaking new ground and will be changes by C++ Standard,
Library and compiler changes.

> Personally, I don’t believe that Incubator is the right way to speed
> development of this software.

Hmmm - why not?

> I think we need to alter the Boost review and acceptance process.

In what way?

> I favour accepting this quite mature software and being prepared for
> it to change as a result of user experience. It won’t get users
> until it is part of a release, as we are running things at present.

What is to be gained by this? Given the scope of the changes you've
cited, it would have to be re-reviewed anyway. And aamini-review or
re-review by the release manager would not be sufficiently exhaustive
and would not draw enough people to repeat the process. Likely it would
result in acceptence a library which hasn't really been scrutinized -
which the outcome which I aspire to prevent.

What does "accept" mean here. That we think it has promise but needs
work? To me it means that this library is basically correct and with
some straightforward changes will meet the boost user's expectations.

There is no reason that a library which is not accepted cannot be
developed further in order to meet Boost's requirements and be
re-submitted. I know for a fact that this is true because that's what I

Robert Ramey

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at