On 3/20/17 8:38 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
This is off-topic, but I'd really appreciate if the page linked in
"Some best practices ideas with samples of script and code and links into source code in existing Boost libraries can be found on the Boost wiki."
be reworked, made up to date, with the controversial/niche recommendations removed. +1 It'd be nice if it reflected practices that are unequivocally endorsed by Boost. I don't know that that is possible.
Back on topic, I think that the current process of getting a library into the review queue is a bit outdated. I suggest we make use of existing infrastructure and make a Github repository "review" owned by the Review Wizard in which submissions occur by way of the endorsing Boost member creating an issue with the description of the library.
Discussion about the library, as it pertains to the review process, can then happen inside this issue; review managers, when found, and scheduled review dates can also be posted there, so as the progress of a library towards a review can be conveniently tracked by people with an interest in the matter.
The README.md file of this repo can be the current review queue. This would effectively be the Boost Incubator version 2 - and there is nothing wrong with that. I could declare victory and retire the inclubator. Accepting a library would simply be a question of changing it's name or moving from the "Boost Submissions" super project to the "Boost" super project.
The only reservation that I have about this idea is that closely couples Boost to Github. I can see the appeal and merit of this idea though. Maybe we should go the full monty, give up on SourceForgeand ask users to just clone the boost superproject to their own machine and use their own copy of git. Then our "release procedure" would be track the testing of the master branch and assign a tag with a version number when it's "perfect" Robert Ramey