On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Niall Douglas
On 2 Apr 2015 at 11:08, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
Should niche libraries be part of Boost?
That's part of the wider debate, definitely. Is quality what we want for the Boost brand, or is popularity?
I'm in the former camp, mainly because as the standard library grows it is necessarily the case that the low hanging fruit is picked and subsequent libraries must be more niche, and less popular. Therefore, to grow and evolve Boost I believe should aim for quality, not popularity.
I am too, which is why I haven't retracted QVM from the review queue.
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 don't think the community does no.
I do think that someone seeking a review manage needs to first give a review manage in return. Otherwise it's bad karma.
I'm guilty as charged. :) My concern is that while encouraging experts to act as review managers is a good thing, encouraging developers of arbitrary experience (there is no screening process for submitting a library for Boost review) to act as review managers probably isn't. -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode