Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Raffi Enficiaud (raffi.enficiaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 22:04:53
On 22.10.18 10:14, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 00:09 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/18 11:33 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:51 Robert Ramey via Boost
>>
> <...>
>
>> Right, I'm sure that boost would be willing to review any such libraries
>> when they are submitted.
>>
>
> I'm proposing to relax the review requirements for those libraries. Include
> them even if the Boost feedback was "need more work". Simplify the review
> process.
>
> We should give users and library authors a simple way to meet and interact.
> Boost is a perfect platform for establishing existing practice and ensuring
> library quality. Let's not loose it because of the exhausting review
> process that requires a lot of time and scares of some of the authors. If
> the library accepted into C++ or Library Fundamentals - then it was already
> reviewed.
I agree. Especially we have more opportunities to mature things "today"
than back in 2003:
- git allowing forking, creation or PR
- platforms like Github that offers issues tracking, doc, conversation,
review all in one place
All those things existed before to some extent, but now collaboration is
easier and faster.
R.