Sean Huang wrote:
The thread lib has recently gone through drastic changes. These much needed changes are very welcome and I really appreciate Anthony's work and efforts. We use boost::thread heavily in our mission/performance critical application and the quality and stability of the boost::thread code is paramount to us. With the recent changes and what happened in that process, I felt that it is necessary to raise my concerns to the community. If these concerns have already been addressed and managed, I sincerely apologize for generating this noise and being paranoid.
I'm personally also a bit concerned, not as much for implementation changes as for possible interface and/or semantic changes. Being an optimist, I believe that by the time the Boost.Thread library is released as part of an official Boost release, the implementation should be of sufficient quality. What I don't want to do, however, is to change my existing client code because of interface/semantic changes. If there are breaking changes, my suggestions would be to put the new (or to preserve the old) code in a separate namespace.
Specifically, my questions are: 1. Do changes in this magnitude warrant a mini-review?
Why not?
2. Is it a good idea that the new implementation be reviewed by other boost threading experts such as Peter and/or Howard?
If a mini-review would take place, I'd be surprised if they didn't participate.
Take it to the next level, does it make sense to have a peer review process for at least significant changes?
No opinions on this one. / Johan