On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:37 PM Vinnie Falco
On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 1:26 PM Klemens Morgenstern < klemensdavidmorgenstern@gmail.com> wrote:
Should I have rejected boost.url, which had the same amount of reviews?
Perhaps, you could have, and it would not have bothered me in the slightest, because Boost.URL *already had users* and there were more coming every day. In other words Boost.URL offered such compelling usability and utility that it did not *need* to be part of the official Boost distribution in order for other projects
This got cut off, here is the full text: Perhaps, you could have, and it would not have bothered me in the slightest, because Boost.URL *already had users* and there were more coming every day. In other words Boost.URL offered such compelling usability and utility that it did not *need* to be part of the official Boost distribution in order for other projects to incorporate it and use it in informal and commercial projects. I want to be clear here, the practice of "we need to accept it into Boost to get users and find out if its any good" to be a harmful idea that carries significant reputational risk. There is no stated policy which describes whether or not this practice is valid for determining acceptance in a review, which is itself a problem (lack of a clear written instructions on how reviewers should evaluate libraries), and the reason that I am having to make these posts. It might be that such a policy would be detrimental as it would be too much of a hard and fast rule, and the question is best determined on a case by case bases. In that scenario I believe that Boost.Klemens.Async is one such case. Thanks