Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost

On 10/22/18 1:14 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 00:09 Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

On 10/21/18 11:33 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:

...

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:51 Robert Ramey via Boost

<...>

...

Right, I'm sure that boost would be willing to review any such libraries when they are submitted.

I'm proposing to relax the review requirements for those libraries. Include them even if the Boost feedback was "need more work". Simplify the review process.

We already do this. Some libraries have been "accepted" with conditions which have entailed a long time - some times years to meet. The lastest instance is the safe numerics library. This was accepted. But the review revealed problems which took 18 months to fix (and still not quite done).

We should give users and library authors a simple way to meet and interact. Boost is a perfect platform for establishing existing practice and ensuring library quality.

I think we have this and I think it's the key feature of boost. Requirements (testing, docs, etc.) a review processes. No other option provides this.

Let's not loose it because of the exhausting review process that requires a lot of time and scares of some of the authors. If the library accepted into C++ or Library Fundamentals - then it was already reviewed.

Maybe the library interface, but certainly not the rest of it: code, docs, tests, etc. BTW, what would be the point of implementing a library accepted into C++ - Won't that be implemented by the vendor anyway?

Another idea: how about dropping the "review manager" requirement? Allow library author to manage the review and require a separate manager only if the votes for library inclusion are doubtful or there's less than N votes.

If an author finds boost requirements to onerous, he should just upload it to github. He doesn't have to follow Boost at all. He can even get it reviewed by reddit/cpp/review - https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp_review/ . No need for Boost at all if it's to much of a problem. Personally, I think the requirements to be accepted into boost too loose and we should raise them to an even higher standard. Robert Ramey