The review of Zach's parser library ran from Feburary 19 -> 28th. If I have mischaracerized/incorrectly stated anyone's position, please let me know in this thread. REVIEW RESULT ----------------------------- The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost. The following tickets in the parser repo should be addressed before adding this library to boost: Consider changing the way semantic actions are invoked https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/106 Turn on -Wall for GCC and Clang builds https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/107 Clearly indicate which directives create a new parser when used, which do not, and why it matters. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/161 Enable code coverage on Github project https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/146 Add more examples and use cases to The Parse Context https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/145 ABI-tag __has_include-guarded differing code https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/151 API reference for char_ should explicitly state that it can be used without args https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/150 Add no_case support to symbol tables https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/149 REVIEW REPORT ----------------------------- We recieved 10 reviews during the review period, and two more after the review ended. Six reviews recommended ACCEPT One review recommended ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS Three reviews reccommended REJECT One review did not reccommend an action. One review was of the documentation only. Thanks to everyone who participated. Thanks to Zach for writing the library, and participating heavily in the review. REVIEW COMMENTS ----------------------------- Several of the reviews sparked discussions, and many of the issues raised were debated back and forth on the mailing list. There was a lot of discussion about the use of Boost.Hana in the library; Zach defended it on the grounds that Hana's tuple has an `operator[]`, which is much more readable than using `std::get`. There was push back from the reviewers on this, not wanting to add a dependency (and learning curve) for yet another library. Currently, this is selectable at compile time; Zach said that he would consider defaulting to use std::tuple instead of Hana::tuple. Phil had trouble with a custom parser that used the double parser; I believe that this was resolved, and this is now captured as a test case: https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/blob/boost_review_changes/test/parse_coord... There was a long discussion about semantic actions, and how they are defined/invoked. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/106 was created to address this. Several people mentioned compiler error messages one such example is https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/105 and compiler warnings https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/107 Christian thinks that the examples comparing Parser to Spirit3 should emphasize the advantages of Parser. Zach to update the examples. He also asked for general design guidance on writing rules vs. actions. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/161 Matt (and others) asked for more CI coverage; Zach said that he welcomed help setting it up. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/146 Alan requested that the numeric parsers use Boost.Charconv for the conversions. He also stated that the section in the docs "The Parse context" is confusing https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/145 David noted some ODR issues https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/151 and he also noted that the docs for the char parser don't say it can be used without arguments: https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/150 He also mentioned that he would really rather see a library design more like Text.Parsec from Haskell. Дмитрий wanted to know why the symbols didn't support 'nocase'. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/149 He also thought that the attribute for parsers with semantic actions is none is not advertised well enough https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/148 Mohammed asked a question about parsing chunk-encoded HTML bodies efficiently. Zach replied that this wasn't supported directly, but you could write a custom parser to do it. Christian reported a hideous performance overhead when parsing JSON. (100x slower than Boost.JSON) Zach and Peter investigated, and it turned out that the construction of a stringstream for tracing was much of it, and the rest was also part of the tracing mechanism. Zach reworked the tracing code, and now non-debug builds are much faster. https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/issues/152 REVIEW ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ----------------------------- Thanks again to Zach for Boost.Parser Many thanks to our expert reviewers, commenters and watchers. Your contributions keep Boost excellent! Marshall Clow Boost.Parser Review Manager
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:01 PM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost.
Congrats Zach, thank you Marshall for managing the review, and thank you to everyone who participated! Regards
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:00 PM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The review of Zach's parser library ran from Feburary 19 -> 28th.
If I have mischaracerized/incorrectly stated anyone's position, please let me know in this thread.
REVIEW RESULT -----------------------------
The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost.
This is great news! Thanks to everyone for their participation in the review. I especially want to thank Marshall for managing the review, and Andrzej for burying me under tickets on Github. :) Andrzej, the library is vastly better for your efforts. Zach
pt., 15 mar 2024 o 22:09 Zach Laine via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:00 PM Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The review of Zach's parser library ran from Feburary 19 -> 28th.
If I have mischaracerized/incorrectly stated anyone's position, please let me know in this thread.
REVIEW RESULT -----------------------------
The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost.
This is great news!
Thanks to everyone for their participation in the review. I especially want to thank Marshall for managing the review, and Andrzej for burying me under tickets on Github. :) Andrzej, the library is vastly better for your efforts.
Zach, Congratulations on getting Boost.Parser accepted! Also thanks to Marshall and all the reviewers for devoting their time for the review process. BTW, I appreciate Marshall's reminders months before the review. This gave me the time to actually prepare for the review ahead of time. I have always found the 10 day period to be too short for detailed research and discussion. Regards, &rzej;
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:01 PM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost.
We have announced the acceptance along with the custom artwork that our artist created for the library here: https://twitter.com/boostlibraries/status/1768774074652647659 If someone who controls the Boost_Libraries X account could please repost or copy the message, that would be great. Thanks
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:15 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:01 PM Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The result is Boost.Parser is * ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS * into Boost.
We have announced the acceptance along with the custom artwork that our artist created for the library here:
https://twitter.com/boostlibraries/status/1768774074652647659
If someone who controls the Boost_Libraries X account could please repost or copy the message, that would be great.
So now you've created a new @BoostLibraries twitter feed instead of using the normal process of getting it listed on the existing @Boost_Libraries one? Wow. Just...wow.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:05 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
So now you've created a new @BoostLibraries twitter feed instead of using the normal process of getting it listed on the existing @Boost_Libraries one? Wow. Just...wow.
I already explained to you months ago that when you revoked my TweetDeck access to the Boost_Libraries X account and demanded that I go through you for every tweet, it was a real damper on the spontaneity of the process. The implicit lack of trust from you was also difficult for me emotionally., especially after I had invested a good part of the year's worth of work while I had access to the account to make it more active and grow the number of followers by 30%. Therefore, we have developed a new process: 1. When there are official communications from the Developers we will post them from @BoostLibraries 2. Official communications can be identified by the new Boost logo and hand-drawn artwork 3. We will announce to the mailing list when there is a new post available 4. At your leisure, David, you can copy or repost the message from our account (your choice) We have verified the @BoostLibraries account by paying the $10,000 annual fee. This allows us to delegate control of the account to other Boost developers (which you have refused to do) so they can compose and post official communications or other communications from any timezone without delays or any single individual acting as a bottleneck. Unlike the old process, where people begged you with private messages to post things, the new process allows proper credit to be given to the individuals and organizations which create and fund the content. As in keeping with the Boost tradition, you are free to repost or copy these communications, or not. Thanks
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:26 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a lie. You know it is a lie, and it can be proven.
Whatever it was that happened, resulted in me losing privileges to post to Boost_Libraries, an account controlled entirely by one person: you. Perhaps you didn't revoke my access, but you did nothing to restore it. Evidenced by the fact that Louis (who is non-technical) was able to delegate access of BoostLibraries to me and several other developers with only a few clicks. I prefer to think of this as "David revoked my access" which may not be literally accurate but captures the essence of the situation. As you have not only resorted to calling me a liar instead of addressing your inability to properly manage a shared Boost resource, but also stormed away to avoid further scrutiny, I will presume you have conceded the matter :) Regards
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:06 PM David Sankel <camior@gmail.com> wrote:
Boost_Libraries, an account controlled entirely by one person: Also false.
It seems I can't keep up. First I have access to Boost_Libraries, then I don't have access to Boost_Libraries, but you say you didn't revoke my access, yet you didn't restore my access, but now you admit that other people have access, I can't wrap my head around this. If you are able to share access then why after I asked you for months did you do nothing, and why are you surprised that we implemented a workaround? Thanks
David Sankel wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:49 AM Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Boost_Libraries, an account controlled entirely by one person: you.
Also false.
I have to admit that I always found the @Boost_Libraries Twitter account somewhat of a mystery. Tweets would occasionally emanate from it, but I could discern no underlying logic as to when they would appear and what they would announce; and if I remember correctly, I once tried to figure out who actually operated it by asking around, but without success. (To be clear, this was in the past.) Now, I'm generally supportive of us keeping our old ways, because they got us where we are, but in this specific case, I don't think our old ways ever worked that well. Maybe we need to address this by having a page on boost.org that lists our social media accounts, who is operating them, and on what basis; that is, what is the mandate given to their operators by the community. Or in other words, what are they supposed to tweet, and when. This "you are in sole control of the account" "no, you are a liar, I'm not the only one, but I won't tell you who the others are" business does not exactly benefit anyone, in my opinion. A bit more clarity and transparency is in order.
I have to admit that I always found the @Boost_Libraries Twitter account somewhat of a mystery. Tweets would occasionally emanate from it, but I could discern no underlying logic as to when they would appear and what they would announce; and if I remember correctly, I once tried to figure out who actually operated it by asking around, but without success.
(To be clear, this was in the past.)
Now, I'm generally supportive of us keeping our old ways, because they got us where we are, but in this specific case, I don't think our old ways ever worked that well.
Maybe we need to address this by having a page on boost.org that lists our social media accounts, who is operating them, and on what basis; that is, what is the mandate given to their operators by the community. Or in other words, what are they supposed to tweet, and when.
This "you are in sole control of the account" "no, you are a liar, I'm not the only one, but I won't tell you who the others are" business does not exactly benefit anyone, in my opinion. A bit more clarity and transparency is in order.
Thank you Peter, much more succinctly put than I could have managed, and spot on as always. If we're going to have social media accounts, then we should probably run the full gamut of FB, X etc and have a clear idea of what is and isn't going to be posted there - apart from anything else so that users have a clear idea of what they're going to see in their feed. At the very least, release announcements, plus maybe say GSOC projects and library review results would be worthwhile, basically the same as the boost.announce mailing list. Best.
John Maddock wrote:
If we're going to have social media accounts, then we should probably run the full gamut of FB, X etc...
I personally don't care about anything else besides X/Twitter, but if we're going to have others as well (e.g. Linkedin), then it should be clear who's in control of them, too.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 7:56 AM Peter Dimov wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
If we're going to have social media accounts, then we should probably run the full gamut of FB, X etc...
I personally don't care about anything else besides X/Twitter, but if we're going to have others as well (e.g. Linkedin), then it should be clear who's in control of them, too.
The "social" part always felt low brow. Like dancing at an assembly. You know... "in vogue amongst the less polished societies of the world" and all. Glen
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 8:02 AM Glen Fernandes wrote:
The "social" part always felt low brow. Like dancing at an assembly. You know... "in vogue amongst the less polished societies of the world" and all.
I forgot to say the important part: I'm in favor of names being associated with any social media accounts or posts because it would give me peace that the name "Glen Fernandes" would not be associated with them. Glen
Glen Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 8:02 AM Glen Fernandes wrote:
The "social" part always felt low brow. Like dancing at an assembly. You know... "in vogue amongst the less polished societies of the world" and all.
I forgot to say the important part: I'm in favor of names being associated with any social media accounts or posts because it would give me peace that the name "Glen Fernandes" would not be associated with them.
In addition to the list of people maintaining the accounts, we may also have a list of people who are not at all maintaining any of them.
I forgot to say the important part: I'm in favor of names being associated with any social media accounts or posts because it would give me peace that the name "Glen Fernandes" would not be associated with them.
Thank you, best laugh I've had all day. I'm actually pretty surprised that we have a twitter/X account at all, but you know, grumpy old programmer speaking here, the youngsters might use them and all that ;) John.
El 16/03/2024 a las 12:15, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:49 AM Vinnie Falco<vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Boost_Libraries, an account controlled entirely by one person: you.
Also false. I have to admit that I always found the @Boost_Libraries Twitter account somewhat of a mystery. Tweets would occasionally emanate from it, but I could discern no underlying logic as to when
David Sankel wrote: they would appear and what they would announce; and if I remember correctly, I once tried to figure out who actually operated it by asking around, but without success.
FWIW, this is the protocol I wrote in the proposed new website for tweet requests (TL;DR they go through David Sankel for him to publish): https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/tweeting.html I started contributing to Boost back in 2003 and I think I have a decent grasp of the project and the community. I believe there are huge PR possibilities and so began being more active on X and Reddit (most of the recent publications in both services came actually from me). In all modesty I think the response has been generally good. If the community gives me this honor I’d be happy to have write access to the X account so that I can be even more active there. Joaquín M López Muñoz
El 16/03/2024 a las 15:29, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost escribió:
https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/tweeting.html
I started contributing to Boost back in 2003 and I think I have a decent grasp of the project and the community. I believe there are huge PR possibilities and so began being more active on X and Reddit (most of the recent publications in both services came actually from me). In all modesty I think the response has been generally good. If the community gives me this honor I’d be happy to have write access to the X account so that I can be even more active there.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
One of the oldest wizards of the kingdom ;-) I personally like your recent posts and promoting Boost in reddit (which has, let's say, some hostile participants). Is there a process to gain posting access to the Boost_Libraries account? I certainly don't know how Boost social media management works, but I failed to find any information about that. Best, Ion
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 9:29 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
El 16/03/2024 a las 12:15, Peter Dimov via Boost escribió:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:49 AM Vinnie Falco<vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
Boost_Libraries, an account controlled entirely by one person: you.
Also false. I have to admit that I always found the @Boost_Libraries Twitter account somewhat of a mystery. Tweets would occasionally emanate from it, but I could discern no underlying logic as to when
David Sankel wrote: they would appear and what they would announce; and if I remember correctly, I once tried to figure out who actually operated it by asking around, but without success.
FWIW, this is the protocol I wrote in the proposed new website for tweet requests (TL;DR they go through David Sankel for him to publish):
https://www.boost.io/doc/contributor-guide/tweeting.html
I started contributing to Boost back in 2003 and I think I have a decent grasp of the project and the community. I believe there are huge PR possibilities and so began being more active on X and Reddit (most of the recent publications in both services came actually from me). In all modesty I think the response has been generally good. If the community gives me this honor I’d be happy to have write access to the X account so that I can be even more active there.
First.. Joaquín has done a good job in the Reddit posts. In particular maintaining a productive and useful conversation in Reddit, which is rather difficult. So I definitely approve of him extending this to the X posts. Second.. X and Reddit are not the only popular social networks to interact with these days. And I think it's important to bring back some life to Boost to find our audience where we haven't before. Hence I would like to see posts in as many networks as seems useful. To that effect I've created some unofficial Boost accounts in a few networks: LinkedIn, mastodon.social, hachyderm.io, bsky.app, and cohost.org. I can give Joaquín access to those if so desired by the community. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:16 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
First.. Joaquín has done a good job in the Reddit posts. [...]
Hi. Just a quick comment that I don't follow social sites like Reddit, X, Hacker-News, etc... Not do I intend to. But I do follow Boost MLs, and I've always enjoyed reading Joaquin's posts on this ML, always helpful, always well articulated (and with impeccable English, which for a non-native, I assume, makes me a bit jealous). I go to these sites on occasions via links to them in MLs or Forums. So all that to say I'd appreciate if links to official Boost posts where also mentioned / advertised on the Boost MLs. My $0.02. --DD
participants (2)
-
Andrzej Krzemienski -
David Sankel -
Dominique Devienne -
Glen Fernandes -
Ion Gaztañaga -
Joaquin M López Muñoz -
Joaquín M López Muñoz
-
John Maddock -
Marshall Clow -
Peter Dimov -
René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -
Vinnie Falco -
Zach Laine