On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 14:47, Vinnie Falco via Boost
Boost libraries used to be cutting edge, to such an extent that they were adopted into the C++ Standard. And now the progress is in reverse. The Standard introduces a new component, and the Boost library follows (Boost.Charconv for example).
It is simpler now for most people to just write papers than a complete, documented, unit-tested library and then engaging in a Boost review. With this role change Boost becomes specially attractive to libraries that won't find their way in to the standard, such as Boost.Redis, Boost.MySql etc.
In other cases I see libraries with few to no users limping into reviews, or absent discussions which question whether or not the bar for excellence is exceeded.
It is hard to know how many users a library has, specially if the docs are great and the library has no bugs. Most users won't even let a star on github.
What is the criteria for determining if a library is good enough to become part of the collection?
The review process? This is why it so important to have a qualified review manager. Marcelo