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 haven't been tracking all the recent changes specifically, but I think that at least some of them are to have boost.thread start tracking to something that looks more like the current proposals for c++0x. Specifically: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2320.html See also: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/10/128343.php for discussion of this. Note that n2320 is now being word-smithed and unless some critical problem arises should be added to the c++0x working paper before the next committee meeting. While at its core n2320 depends heavily on boost thread it differs in a number of ways.
Specifically, my questions are: 1. Do changes in this magnitude warrant a mini-review? 2. Is it a good idea that the new implementation be reviewed by other boost threading experts such as Peter and/or Howard? Take it to the next level, does it make sense to have a peer review process for at least significant changes?
My $0.02 -- mini-review of the threading changes can't hurt given the importance to the c++ community of getting the best possible threading api in c++0x. Jeff