- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Kenneth Porter 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

I use two threaded mailers: Thunderbird and Mulberry. But the main value of threading here is being able to skip to the end of a subthread to see the latest answer. I can do that quickly in a forum without threading. But I do like the threading of Reddit and Slashdot, so a forum that supports that would be nice. My biggest gripe with the mailing list is really with my ISP's mailing system (Xfinity), which doesn't retry a submission to the listserv when the listserv's greylisting bounces the initial submission with a temporary failure. I have to wait a couple minutes for the bounce email and then re-send from my Sent folder. As I'll certainly have to do with this message. So I don't participate as much on this list as I do on others without the greylisting. A forum wouldn't be subject to this problem. It does seem that forums get better search engine spidering than mailing list archives do. So it would be easier to search for answers using a forum. I'd hope to see a forum with a monthly or weekly mailing of a summary of active threads. I get that with a few forums, notably Rocky Linux and Visual Tool Kit. That's a feature of mailing lists: I don't forget to look to see new messages. But I do filter mailing list messages to separate folders (using the List-ID header) so they don't clutter my Inbox. I just glance at the Boost folder to see what new activity is available as part of my regular email regimen.

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Robert Ramey 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On 4/27/23 8:11 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:56 AM Robert Ramey via Boost > <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> I fail to see what is to be gained by replacing the current system. > > The current system is not being "replaced" it is being enhanced, with > the OPTION (but not the requirement) to interact with the mailing > lists using a modern, forum-based interface. Just as there are folks > who have expressed that they would not participate in Boost > discussions outside of the mailing list interface, there are as many > (or more) people who have expressed that they will not interact with > Boost through the mailing list at all. You don't hear from them > because well, they don't post to the list (the dog that didn't bark). > > You ask, what is to be gained? > Well, the largest existential threat to > Boost is that we do not refresh the foundations of our social > technology and our membership. I don't believe this. > Library membership in Boost no longer > carries the cachet that it used to. Perhaps - > Authors of new libraries > increasingly prefer to go directly to the C++ standard instead of > being thoroughly vetted in a Boost review. True - Because its much easier to get something into the standard than it is to get it into boost. For one thing Boost requires a working implementation, test suite, and user level documentation. For the standard, all one needs is to convince a small group of one's buddies that the world needs the authors proposal. This is especially effective when the proposal is too opaque for any normal person to understand - thus guarenteeing that there were be no real objections. That is until its features get added into the standard and real people have difficulties implementing and/or using them. If we want to continue to > maintain Boost's extraordinary relevance, we must do the following: > 1. Make the mailing list more appealing to younger generations > (millenials and the TikTok youths) I don't think this is a real problem. I'm trying not to sound like a curmudgeonly old person, but really - are millenias and TikTok youths our target audience? > 2. Increase participation in the Boost Formal Review process To do this we need to attract better libraries and work harder to promote the review. Also the 1-2 week window for reviews is a big problem. I might want to do a review but I can't right now. One of the features of my "Blincubator" project was to permit one to post reviews long in advance of the official review period. In fact. We might delay the formal review period until there are some magic number of reviews already in the queue. > 3. Spark the imagination of the new generations of library authors > - to write new libraries > - to submit their libraries to Boost for review > - to become active maintainers upon acceptanc > > 4. Inspire people to contribute to Boost > - by using the libraries, and providing feedback > - by contributing to individual projects > - by helping with documentation > - by helping other users with questions or problems I think the best way to do this is for boost to create better software. This would mean less bugs/design flaws, better documentation, less quirky tools. Why can't we apply the standards we use for user libraries to boost infrastructure? This would mean: boost tools like the following: a) documentation chain b) build system - Bjam c) build system - CMake integration c) CI d) GitHub integration e) website development and testing f) probably some others I forgot would be subject to similar requirements as boost user libraries. That is, Test suite, documentation, Formal review. None of the boost tools have been subjected to these requirements - and anyone who tries to use them notices. This is probably the single greatest obstacle to continued progress of boost. > The mailing lists must never go away, for as long as there are even a > few people who prefer them. But this cannot be the sole method to > participate in the Boost social space. To stay current we must provide > additional choices. The need for a forum interface is obvious. Don't the #boost and #boost-user forums on Slack currently fulfill this requirement? Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Peter Dimov 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Glen Fernandes wrote: > On Friday, April 28, 2023, Dominique Devienne wrote: > > > Of course, Boost.Compat (or Boost.Polyfill) would need to turn on/off > > its std:: alternatives depending on the standard level in use. > > > > > If everyone agrees, this can be one of the tenets of Boost.Compat from the > very beginning. > > The "depending on the standard level in use" might be further clarified to > mean "provides a fully functional std:: version". An implementation in terms of `using std::something` will be allowed, but not required.

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Glen Fernandes 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On Friday, April 28, 2023, Dominique Devienne wrote: > Of course, Boost.Compat (or Boost.Polyfill) would need to turn > on/off > its std:: alternatives depending on the standard level in use. > > If everyone agrees, this can be one of the tenets of Boost.Compat from the very beginning. The "depending on the standard level in use" might be further clarified to mean "provides a fully functional std:: version". Glen

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Dominique Devienne 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Newer C++ standards (20) have been adding useful things to the > standard library (<bit>, <latch>, etc) and most of us would like to > use them, both in Boost and outside of it, while still supporting > C++11, or 14, or 17. > > Many of these components are straightforward to implement > using the C++11 standard library, consist of not much than one > relatively small header, don't need many Boost dependencies > beyond the required ones (Assert, ThrowException, Config), and > since their interface is already fixed by the standard, don't need > a design review. > > It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > private copy. > > At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > encouraged): > > https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > > Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) > +1. I'm on C++17, and have adopted std::span and others from C++20/23, from various places on GitHub. I'd welcome Boost-provided "polyfills" [1] instead. Of course, Boost.Compat (or Boost.Polyfill) would need to turn on/off its std:: alternatives depending on the standard level in use. --DD PS: Since we update our Boost dependency rarely, I sometimes drop newer Boost libs (e.g. Boost.Describe) in our code-base, and hope for backward-compatibility with our old Boost install. So if Boost.Compat could be similarly backward-compatible, that would increase the likelyhood we could use it sooner rather than later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfill_(programming)

1 0

Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE & BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF
by John Maddock 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On 27/04/2023 23:19, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote: > in boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp > > I find this bit of code: > > // > // We can't have a working std::wstreambuf if there is no std::locale: > // > # if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) && !defined(BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF) > # define BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF > # endif > > and believe it or not. this is now causing me some issues. Is the > statement above true? Do we know that wide char streams cannot exist > without std::locale being present? Can anyone shed light on this? As already mentioned, the original logic (and this dates back to C++98 or maybe even earlier!) was that there was a direct dependency between the "new" iostream operators and std::locale. I'm sure that for 99% of platforms this is redundant now anyway given that everyone supports wchar_t. What's the specific issue this is causing? John.

1 0

Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE & BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF
by Gavin Lambert 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On 28/04/2023 13:07, Glen Fernandes wrote: >> in boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp >> I find this bit of code: >> // >> // We can't have a working std::wstreambuf if there is no std::locale: >> // >> # if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) && !defined(BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF) >> # define BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF >> # endif >> >> and believe it or not. this is now causing me some issues. Is the >> statement above true? Do we know that wide char streams cannot exist >> without std::locale being present? Can anyone shed light on this? > > Not just std::wstreambuf but also std::streambuf. ie. std::basic_streambuf > depends on std::locale. But does it really? I could imagine that in some embedded platform std::locale could be omitted (since it's huge, rarely used, insufficient for purpose, and everyone hates it anyway), and in that implementation it could be presumed that no such dependency exists either, so long as you don't try to actually call the omitted methods.

1 0

Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE & BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF
by Glen Fernandes 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:13 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > in boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp > I find this bit of code: > // > // We can't have a working std::wstreambuf if there is no std::locale: > // > # if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) && !defined(BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF) > # define BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF > # endif > > and believe it or not. this is now causing me some issues. Is the > statement above true? Do we know that wide char streams cannot exist > without std::locale being present? Can anyone shed light on this? > Not just std::wstreambuf but also std::streambuf. ie. std::basic_streambuf depends on std::locale. Glen

1 0

BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE & BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF
by Robert Ramey 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

in boost/config/detail/suffix.hpp I find this bit of code: // // We can't have a working std::wstreambuf if there is no std::locale: // # if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) && !defined(BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF) # define BOOST_NO_STD_WSTREAMBUF # endif and believe it or not. this is now causing me some issues. Is the statement above true? Do we know that wide char streams cannot exist without std::locale being present? Can anyone shed light on this? Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Christian Mazakas 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

I'm the author of the <latch> PR for Core so I'm also naturally in favor of this addition. What's the protocol for accepting such a library into Boost? Does it still go through formal review? Most of what would go in there exists in already-accepted Boost libraries. For example, the aforementioned Boost.Algorithm and Boost.Core contains several such things as <span>, <bit> and in its detail folder, <string_view>. The good news though is that because we're simply polyfilling standardized practice, there's no need to bikeshed interfaces. Oh, I almost forgot about Boost.Optional. How do we reify all of these existing classes and functions? - Christian

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Zach Laine 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:21 AM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:31 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < > > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > >> It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > >> put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > >> private copy. > >> > >> At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > >> anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > >> encouraged): > >> > >> https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > >> > >> However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > >> > >> So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > >> (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > >> > >> Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) > >> > > > > > > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the > > Core thread indicates). > > There’s a lot of this kind of stuff in Boost.Algorithm > > Boost/algorithm/cxx11, for example. Ha. Read first, then post, Zach. Zach

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Zach Laine 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:16 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Newer C++ standards (20) have been adding useful things to the > standard library (<bit>, <latch>, etc) and most of us would like to > use them, both in Boost and outside of it, while still supporting > C++11, or 14, or 17. > > Many of these components are straightforward to implement > using the C++11 standard library, consist of not much than one > relatively small header, don't need many Boost dependencies > beyond the required ones (Assert, ThrowException, Config), and > since their interface is already fixed by the standard, don't need > a design review. > > It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > private copy. > > At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > encouraged): > > https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > > Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) I like this idea a lot. I want to mention that there are lots of places currently that do a partial job of this. One conspicuous one is Algorithm. There are probably lots of others. Having one place to get all the compatibility bits would be very welcome. Zach

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Marshall Clow 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:31 AM, Glen Fernandes via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > >> It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to >> put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a >> private copy. >> >> At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of >> anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I >> encouraged): >> >> https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 >> >> However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. >> >> So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat >> (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. >> >> Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) >> > > > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the > Core thread indicates). There’s a lot of this kind of stuff in Boost.Algorithm Boost/algorithm/cxx11, for example. — Marshall

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Glen Fernandes 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to > put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a > private copy. > > At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of > anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I > encouraged): > > https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 > > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. > > Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.) > For the rest of the list: I'm in favor of this (as my response in the Core thread indicates). Glen

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost.Compat
by Niall Douglas 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On 27/04/2023 16:16, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote: > However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. > > So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat > (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. I'd prefer if those polyfills were categorised according to C++ standard, so: Boost.CXX11 Boost.CXX14 Boost.CXX17 Boost.CXX20 Boost.CXX23 ... Then when a person upgrades the minimum C++ standard for a codebase, what needs to be switched to std:: is very easy to identify. Niall

1 0

Boost.Compat
by Peter Dimov 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Newer C++ standards (20) have been adding useful things to the standard library (<bit>, <latch>, etc) and most of us would like to use them, both in Boost and outside of it, while still supporting C++11, or 14, or 17. Many of these components are straightforward to implement using the C++11 standard library, consist of not much than one relatively small header, don't need many Boost dependencies beyond the required ones (Assert, ThrowException, Config), and since their interface is already fixed by the standard, don't need a design review. It would be nice if we had a dedicated place in Boost where to put these, to avoid the need for everyone reimplementing a private copy. At the moment, some of these have gone into Core, for lack of anywhere else, and we now have a <latch> contribution (which I encouraged): https://github.com/boostorg/core/pull/144 However, Core is not quite the right place for these components. So my suggestion is to create a separate library/repo, Boost.Compat (boostorg/compat, namespace boost::compat) for them. Thoughts? (Be sure to read the discussion in the PR as well.)

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:56 AM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Boost has a history making it's own tools: > ... > It's not a great history. In fact, I spend more time getting boost > tools to work than I do working on boost software. The difference here is that our efforts are powered by staff engineers who draw a salary and external corporations who have, as a condition of payment, the accomplishment of our goals. Thanks

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Vinnie Falco 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:56 AM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > I fail to see what is to be gained by replacing the current system. The current system is not being "replaced" it is being enhanced, with the OPTION (but not the requirement) to interact with the mailing lists using a modern, forum-based interface. Just as there are folks who have expressed that they would not participate in Boost discussions outside of the mailing list interface, there are as many (or more) people who have expressed that they will not interact with Boost through the mailing list at all. You don't hear from them because well, they don't post to the list (the dog that didn't bark). You ask, what is to be gained? Well, the largest existential threat to Boost is that we do not refresh the foundations of our social technology and our membership. Library membership in Boost no longer carries the cachet that it used to. Authors of new libraries increasingly prefer to go directly to the C++ standard instead of being thoroughly vetted in a Boost review. If we want to continue to maintain Boost's extraordinary relevance, we must do the following: 1. Make the mailing list more appealing to younger generations (millenials and the TikTok youths) 2. Increase participation in the Boost Formal Review process 3. Spark the imagination of the new generations of library authors - to write new libraries - to submit their libraries to Boost for review - to become active maintainers upon acceptance 4. Inspire people to contribute to Boost - by using the libraries, and providing feedback - by contributing to individual projects - by helping with documentation - by helping other users with questions or problems The mailing lists must never go away, for as long as there are even a few people who prefer them. But this cannot be the sole method to participate in the Boost social space. To stay current we must provide additional choices. The need for a forum interface is obvious. Thanks

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Robert Ramey 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

On 4/26/23 8:02 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > - No existing solution meets our needs, so we have to write it ourselves The above sentence is a huge red flag. Boost has a history making it's own tools: a) documentation chain b) build system - Bjam c) build system - CMake integration c) CI d) GitHub integration d) probably some others I forgot It's not a great history. In fact, I spend more time getting boost tools to work than I do working on boost software. Like most computer projects, it turns out to be a lot of work which drags on forever and is constantly fiddled with to make work. When the work becomes tedious enthusiasm peters out and were stuck with something that "can be made to work". I fail to see what is to be gained by replacing the current system. Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Gavin Lambert 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On 27/04/2023 08:40, Robert Ramey wrote: > I use a threaded email reader - Thunderbird. > > I get my mailing list posts via a news reader. > > This is a perfectly wonderful setup and I'd be loath to change it. +1 on all three points. Via gmane, specifically. Thus far a newsreader has been the only successful way I can follow a community -- flat mailing lists are too disjointed and hard to follow context, and websites are "out of sight, out of mind"; I might keep up for a few weeks but inevitably forget for a while and then I'm 1k messages behind and I just ignore it forever.

1 0

proposal Multi multidimensional array library
by Alfredo Correa 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Hi all, My name is Alfredo. I would like to propose this library called Multi for inclusion in Boost. Multi is a container and views library for (dynamic) multidimensional arrays. The library is available here, https://gitlab.com/correaa/boost-multi. The Boost prefix is purely aspirational at this point, of course. As I understand the process, the important step at this point is to find someone(s) to endorse the library and later a review manager. If you want to be an endorser, please let me know. If anyone has feedback or tips to prepare it for a review, please let me know as well. I will be at the Aspen CPPNOW conference if someone wants to discuss it in person. I am in the C++ Slack channel #boost for discussions as well. Here is a link to try it quickly online https://godbolt.org/z/KerbxW6WK. Thank you, Alfredo

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Robert Ramey 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On 4/26/23 7:08 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > Before we replace the mailing list with a forum (and implement a mail > gateway) can I get feedback on how you use the mailing list from your > email client? > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if > discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? What is important > to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? > I use a threaded email reader - Thunderbird. I get my mailing list posts via a news reader. This is a perfectly wonderful setup and I'd be loath to change it. Robert Ramey

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Mateusz Loskot 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 19:26, Nikita Kniazev via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > There is GitHub Discussion. What is wrong to enable Discussions on > https://github.com/boostorg/boost and use it? Indeed, why not try GitHub Discussions as a new space to evaluate interest in a Web-based forum. I'm happy with the current mailman, but if any migration is considered, then IMHO it should improve integration of comm, and not distribute it further. I'm not saying I'm a die-hard fan of GHD, but I am willing to trade some of my personal preferences for single place I go to. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Mateusz Loskot 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 16:08, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? Gmail, flat. I occasionally appreciate threaded view on lists.boost.org. > What is important to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? Usable search. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Replacing the ML with a forum
by Nikita Kniazev 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

> Are you using a threaded e-mail reader? If so, do you care if discussions are changed to be flat (like Discourse)? I use Gmail which I think supports threads, but I subscribed to digests so no threads for me. > as no one in their twenties or earlier wants to use a mailing list I'm not from that demographic but I also don't want to use mailing lists. But I'm not a fan of 'forums' either. > What is important to you (besides that you can continue to use your email client)? 1. Main reason why I can't use the mail list: I don't want to subscribe to everything happening there. Probably there are email clients that make that easier, but that already excludes people who don't use such a client. 2. I subscribed to a digest and there is still no way to post to a thread without being subscribed to the mail list before it had been started. And even for one who had been subscribed it gives a wrong address to post to. 3. There is no way to link a post or thread. Inside the mail list itself or anywhere else. What are the options for a person who is not on the mail list? https://lists.boost.org? https://lists.boost.org is a user experience nightmare: 1. You can't post, only may create a new thread by mailing to the mail list. 2. You have to click on every message to read it. 3. In a threaded view you also can see only one message at a time, and it is easy to miss parts of the thread by clicking the wrong button. 4. Google and other search engines for some reason have indexing issues with it. Even if I know something was on the mail list or there is a comment in Boost's code with a link to a dead Gmane I had great luck finding absolutely nothing with multiple web search engines. 5. There is no code snippet syntax highlighting. 6. It doesn't interact with itself, or anything else either. > implement our own web-based forum I don't think it's a good idea. > The other alternative is to do a clean break and deploy something completely new, which would be Discourse. The downside of Discourse is that it does not support threaded discussions, and because of their philosophical objection to hierarchical conversations >From my experience with Discourse a post will contain a list of replies to it which you can jump back and forth. I don't see a great value in highly branched discussions, it is impossible to follow even on things like Hacker News or Reddit, just create a new thread. And... There is GitHub Discussion. What is wrong to enable Discussions on https://github.com/boostorg/boost and use it? AFAIK it supports posting from a mail client and subscribing to it to receive everything or just subscribed threads by emails? > * Written in Ruby, a dying language GitHub is written in Ruby :-)

1 0