Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue

Emil Dotchevski wrote:

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:

...

Both myself and Antony have served as review manager for other libraries since submitting our libraries. The present situation is frustrating, though I'd imagine for Emil it is even worse seeing as he's been waiting a year longer, and yet has been doing all the work a library maintainer does except without the recognition or visibility of being included into Boost official.

Doesn't this simply mean that there isn't enough interest in the library within the Boost community? :)

Actually there is interest. From quite long time we're considering using QVM in/with Geometry.

...

Whilst peer review is important, it is impractical for very niche libraries

Should niche libraries be part of Boost? In the case of QVM I like to think that a generic quaternion/vector/matrix library is not *that* niche but the evidence seems to show that it is. Regardless I don't feel that the Boost community owes me a review. :)

I promissed you to be a manager some time ago, so at least I owe you that. :) Therefore I'd like to volunteer. Regards, Adam