On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 2:27 AM Robert Ramey via Boost
I've been contacted by my friend and sometime collaborator Takatoshi Kondo regarding his submission of a boost library: https://github.com/redboltz/async_mqtt. It has received two endorsements. He has asked me to be review manager and I'm inclined to accept this request as he was very helpful to me during the refinement of the boost serialization library.
There is also mqtt client library that is proposed to the Boost. https://github.com/mireo/async-mqtt5 It also has endorsements and a review manager.
I've been approached by the mireo authors and have volunteered to be their review manager.
A cursory examination of the git hub pages suggest considerable overlap between the two submissions. In general, boost has discouraged the acceptance of multiple libraries with this much overlap - and for good reason. An accepted library often becomes the canonical implementation in large parts of the C++ world. Having two high quality libraries that do almost the same thing is not where we would like to be.
Who's deciding "too much overlap"? Shouldn't this be up to reviewers? In this case, mireo aims to be a safe & easy-to-use client library, while redboltz is a protocol library that can also be used to build servers.
I would like to propose that we review both libraries simultaneously in order to try to reach a consensus as to which, if either we want to accept. I know this is a difficult task, but I think it is important that we do this. It's going to be tough to reject a well written library because a better one has been accepted. But it would be worse to reject a well written library merely because another one was submitted first. Normally I don't participate as a review manager as I'm pretty bogged down in Boost stuff as it is. But I'm willing to make an exception in this case due to the importance of this case and my strong personal ties to Takatoshi. BTW - who is the review wizard these days? I presume that he will be the one making the decision about this.
What I would propose is that both libraries are review simultaneously or back-to-back, but considered separate reviews. A few thoughts: - The review manager exchange notes and publish their decision at the same time. - Yet, these are two different reviews. - Reviewers are encouraged (yet not forced) to review both libraries. - The RM of library B can take into account if a reviewer only reviews library A - The RM can also take into account the result of the other review (e.g. if it's a close call for A, but B is accepted overwhelmingly) - If we do the reviews simultaneously, do we need an extended period? - Can the RM of A write a review or participate in the discussion for B? - Should consensus between RMs be required? Or could both libraries be accepted?
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost