On 02/25/2010 08:50 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
It's perfectly OK to move those 3 libraries to the 'detail' namespace of Boost.Task and have review as it is, as opposed to waiting. What do you think?
Please, don't go that way. At least Boost.Atomic is a widely demanded addition to Boost, and if it goes as some closed implementation detail for an other library, it would be a great shame for users (it would surely be for me).
Oliver had its own specific atomic implementation. He has changed to use the recent Boost.Atomic library, and I think this is good. The issue is that this library is not on the review schedule, so I don't see a problem if Oliver push its implementation to a detail namespace.
I think, this would at least delay the official acceptance of Boost.Atomic, as there will be less spur for it to happen.
As an alternative I would suggest to settle a common review for the three components, while leaving them all top level libraries. That would resolve the issue of "partial approval" that Robert pointed out.
Andrey do you think you could take the responsability for Boost.Move or Boost.Fiber?
Do you mean responsibility for accepting or rejecting these libraries, were I a review manager? Yes, I would, at least regarding Boost.Move, as I have relatively good understanding of the domain. It's harder with Boost.Fiber as I'm not competent in its domain. The main obstacle for me is lack of time, which, I think, is common for many of us.