Hi, I'm following the discussions about potential changes in the boost organization and I'm happy to see that a lot of people here wants to fix those problems ( review management, separation of library states (or libraries), etc.). I'm a game developer but I'm only using boost in my home projects. At work I'm currently not using C++ but have been for years in previous jobs. I'm not a C++ guru yet, just to be clear. We didn't use boost in my previous game company position, for a lot of reasons, one being the complexity of the implementations that a lot of my coworkers (and myself for a long time) couldn't follow -- making debug hard as if you don't trust a libary and the errors occurs in the library code, you're not sure if the bug is yours or from the library... . It wouldn't have been a problem as learning is part of the job, but there were deadlines. That have already been said so I just add a quick comment about that. (there were technical reasons too relative to the compilers and embedded systems we were working on) --- About potentially replacing SVN by another source control system, I thought that it would be helpful to point you to the OGRE (C++ OO graphic engine) lead blog where he reported his data while evaluating Git and Mercurial (Bazaar was also cited). It might be a good documentation about the current state of these solutions as a lot of analysis is already done for you. - the most interesting comparison : http://www.stevestreeting.com/2009/11/06/dvcs-score-card/ - you can find other discussions on this page : http://www.stevestreeting.com/category/development/ - the community poll thread : http://www.ogre3d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53129 To sum-up, currently the choice of the Ogre lead would be Mercurial, the reasons being windows support that is poor for git, git error reporting being problematic or non-existant and mercurial being easier to learn (git asking a bit of internal guts knowledge to be well used). Now, I don't want to start a flamewar too, I'm pointing here those analysis as interesting documentation to get a faster decision if the source control system really have to be changed. There are too much slow processes in the C++ communities. I hope that some boost libraries will be reviewed or aproved for a near-complete-or-stable stage soon and I'm using some from of them currently with the last boost version. It would be very usefull to get the libraries separately from a source control system, making upgrading a specific library to fix a bug in the user application easier. Joël Lamotte. On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 23:56, Stefan Strasser <strasser@uni-bremen.de>wrote:
Am Thursday 26 November 2009 21:57:44 schrieb Detlef Wilkening:
I`m relatively new to boost, but judging from the "notes for review managers" on the website that doesn`t sound like a lot of work. I'm planning to submit a library for review myself, and the prospect that that'd take 2 years isn't very encouraging, so I'd probably volunteer just for this reason alone.
I would like to help too. I would do the work of a review manager for a library too. But I am new to boost. Is there in the boost documentation a page, which describes what a review manager must do. E.g. how to start a review, how to collect the answers to the result, other things to know?
http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost