On 1/2/17 7:41 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
But I've been keen on an 'accepted as candidate for Boost' distribution for many years, and I would still like to see this adopted.
How would this be different than having a library placed into the review queue by the review wizard? I don't know if the review wizard puts every request in or if he does some sort of checking. The incubator does requirements. But they are pretty easy to meet. No one has complained that they are too strict. Basically, I don't think a new designation would add any thing.
It would lead to better (and less acrimonious) reviews because we are not expecting perfection from day one.
FWIW - I don't think the reviews are all that acrimonious. But maybe that's just me.
Too few people are reviewing 'real-life' usage.
We need more users and that won't happen until we have a two-stage acceptance process.
Well we sort of have a two-stage process now. Stage I = inclubator Stage II reviewed I don't know how many users actually use libraries in the incubator (I'd love to get statistics on that but github doesn't have download stats). For any library in the incubutor, there's a button you press which shows a graph of the number of times people have brought up the library page. If one had nothing else to do and was a wordpress/php guru he could clone the library directly from the library page and gather statistics on that. In any case, I think we have enough process. We just need to use it more.
On this can't we trust the author to move from his develop branch to master when he thinks fit?
Right. But I think we need an iteration/evolution in the test and modularization procedures of boost
Keep It Simple Sir?
LOL always
Paul
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost