"Fernando Cacciola" wrote:
The very high quaility of boost libraries is due to the so-called BOOST METHOD (I just coined the term, but how I like it :): the managed and peer-reviewed acceptance process.
The very high quality is due to people who choose to hang out here and contribute. Bigger problem that API changes are abandoned libraries. A tool or a process helping to maintain these libraries is needed. Even visible marking of these libraries is missing. Effective and visible way to collect bug reports does not exist (I much appreciate the work of Marshal Clow but tool support is necessary, IMHO). There's no way for people to contribute with small examples to amend the often insufficient documentation. Boost reviews often do not gather sufficient number of reviewers and the official short period needs to be extended almost every time. It is not easy to do review before the official period starts (no versioning of the source, schedule is often missing). Information about abandoned but potentialy handy libraries is not kept anywhere to be picked by someone else. The source code is usually lost. /Pavel