on Mon Nov 19 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
So its not the placement itself that's wrong? The error is is only that it reviewed as part of something else rather than independently? So the correctness of the placement of such a module is defined in terms of the outcome of a formal review? Does that seem like a practical system to you?
Robert, the system has worked very well until recently.
Suppose static_warning.hpp were reviewed and for some reason it was rejected and it were moved into the serialization library. Then we would have the situation where two very similar libraries would be in two entirely different places. Would this be logical from the standpoint of someone examining boost and trying to understand where stuff is?
It may in fact be suboptimally logical from that point of view. In my opinion there are advantages that outweigh those disadvantages, but that's not really important right now. We can debate the system as it has existed all you like, but until there is consensus that it needs to change, we ask that you try to follow the previous practices as they have been laid out for you. The Boost policy gives library authors a huge amount of freedom to organize and evolve their libraries as they see fit. Once his library has passed review, a library author can add huge new functionality at any time, or decide to break backward compatibility when necessary, or restructure the library's headers without a review. We only ask that libraries stay within the boundaries of a boost/ subdirectory and boost:: namespace named after the library, with the exception of consolidated forwarding headers and small core libraries. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com