Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
What's the difference between a non-stable branch as you're suggesting and the existing sandbox? The only difference I could see is to establish some kind of pre-review process. But that would just move the problem to a different spot, no?
To my mind, there are two key differences: 1. The sandbox does not have a release cycle. There are no sandbox packages released. 2. Somewhat connected to #1. The sandbox is not tested regularly and widely. The most testing level we can expect is local testing by the library authors and enthusiast users. These two key drawbacks has always prevented me from using anything from sandbox in real world applications. If Boost does release a non-stable branch, it should receive at least periodical testing on key compilers and a release cycle (be that the same cycle that core Boost libraries have or not). Otherwise I don't see much sense in it.