On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:38 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Sun Nov 23 2008, "Daniel Walker" <daniel.j.walker-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
The goal of a review been to ensure quality., you don't think that every major evolution of a Boost library should have its own mini-review?
That's a good question, and I really don't know the answer. Others know the history better than me, but I feel like when Boost started most libraries were already fairly mature at the time they were submitted for review; if they weren't they were rejected. After acceptance, must libraries were fairly stable, so existing practice evolved around boost and many of those early libraries are now in the ISO draft standard.
But it's good to have major evolutionary changes, now and then. Boost.Iterator went through a major rewrite, Boost.Lambda is about to go through the same... But my impression is that the major changes should be rare, an exception that proves the rule, and should be handled as a special case.
Perhaps more importantly, major evolutionary changes have historically been handled well, without causing major pain to users.
I agree. Boost has a long history of success, and I certainly respect the accomplishments of all Boost authors. Daniel Walker