On 2016-12-26 03:32, Artyom Beilis wrote:
... I really like the idea to have such a library in Boost.
Then IMO you should be at least voting conditional "yes".
But I don't feel it is mature enough, especially the backends in their current state - and finally the backends are actually the most critical and hardest stuff to implement _correctly_
I am not disputing that at all. To say that the lib is in the perfect shape would be a stretch. That said, IMO expecting the author to do everything right, to address all imaginable use-cases and to provide extensive documentation that would satisfy everyone is an impossible task and, therefore, IMO it should not be the expectation during a review. I can't help feeling that quite often reviewers expect everything on a silver plate with all Ts crossed and everything. And then they want more. I do not believe that's a constructive attitude. IMO it puts an immense pressure and burden on the author without giving anything in return... even an incentive to come back. The "door" is simply shut with a message "go away; you might try knocking again and going through that same humiliation again with no promises at all". Would not that be wiser to give the author an incentive to address the discussed issues, to accept the lib conditionally and to see the lib evolving, improving, finished as part of Boost? Surely, it won't give the users "everything". However, it'll give the users working "something" and will provide the author with a considerably better feedback and the desire to address that.