On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:39 PM Thomas Fowlery
The design may be "good enough" and it might "work", but is this the standard Boost is aspiring to?
I wondered about this myself, back in March of 2024 when I posted this to the mailing list: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2024/03/256333.php However I have been informed that the criteria for accepting a library into Boost something more along these lines: * That the library is useful, and * Boost is better off with the library than without This would appear to be at odds with your implication that Boost submissions should aspire to more. Klemens position has been consistent and he stated it as a reply all the way back in March: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/03/256335.php He is technically not wrong, although based on the conversations after the review result for async-mqtt5 was posted it seems that there are differences of opinion as to what is the criteria for evaluating whether a library should be part of Boost or not. Interestingly my expectation that my post from March would stimulate a robust discussion about acceptance criteria was never satisfied, and perhaps this is the opportunity to catalyze that discussion again. What do you think are the qualities that should be found in a library submission during a formal review which would make it suitable to become part of Boost? Happy to hear from you Thomas, and everyone else. Thanks