Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-26 07:11:26

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: 25 August 2015 20:20
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
> 
> 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 it will never take off until 'official'.  That is most unreasonable, but a fact of life.

>  > I think we need to alter the Boost review and acceptance process.
 
> In what way?

Having two 'status' flags:

 *  mature and 'standard' - stable and bug-free (we hope).
 *  'experimental' - usable but still be being improved.

The C++ Standards people have started to accept the need for 'experimental' status.

(Of course, the 'status' is really a continuum, not a bool). 

My main reason is that I believe that people won't use libraries until they are in the release.

And without lots of users  ("first encounter with the enemy") , you don't find if things are really
useful or not.

IMO, too many Boost reviews are by far too few people and with too little real-life use.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]