You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is more like an idea, as I do not have a concrete recipe for the moment.
The ultimate goal would be to have libraries that are candidates for inclusion into Boost, especially during the review period, to be testable in an online environment, such as Compiler Explorer.
This would enable the feedback from people who do not have time or capabilities to install a candidate library in their environments.
Potential reviewers are volunteers, have their private lives and they $dayjobs, and the review period is relatively short. They are often put off by the time it is required to perform a review. Writing the report is time consuming itself. Environment setup is an additional unnecessary effort.
Of course, library authors are also volunteers with similar constraints, so burdening them with the additional requirement is also not a good option.
But maybe Boost website could offer an instruction or scripts for making the online access to the testing environment easier. Maybe a hot line channel with Matt Godbolt? Something that would make it easy for library authors to install their library in the testing environment. Or something for the reviewers to do so. Or a server similar in spirit to Compiler Explorer where the candidate libraries can be tested. This would be useful not only during reviews. Official Boost libraries would also benefit from such online demos. This would help developers decide if they want to use Boost.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At a minimum, the documentation could include a sentence or paragraph explaining how making a header-only version of the library purely for review (if the library is not already strictly header-only) is a help for compiler explorer.
It could offer a script that, for header-only libraries, iterates over the include/boost folder and produces one big flat header with all the contents. This will not work for compiled libraries, but is still something.
Compiler explorer now has a way to "Load from ZIP" a whole IDE style project. If someone could figure out how to make ZIPs that work with that and post a guide for lib authors, they could provide a CE compatible ZIP as part of the review.
This is more like an idea, as I do not have a concrete recipe for the moment.
The ultimate goal would be to have libraries that are candidates for inclusion into Boost, especially during the review period, to be testable in an online environment, such as Compiler Explorer.
This would enable the feedback from people who do not have time or capabilities to install a candidate library in their environments.
Potential reviewers are volunteers, have their private lives and they $dayjobs, and the review period is relatively short. They are often put off by the time it is required to perform a review. Writing the report is time consuming itself. Environment setup is an additional unnecessary effort.
Of course, library authors are also volunteers with similar constraints, so burdening them with the additional requirement is also not a good option.
But maybe Boost website could offer an instruction or scripts for making the online access to the testing environment easier. Maybe a hot line channel with Matt Godbolt? Something that would make it easy for library authors to install their library in the testing environment. Or something for the reviewers to do so. Or a server similar in spirit to Compiler Explorer where the candidate libraries can be tested. This would be useful not only during reviews. Official Boost libraries would also benefit from such online demos. This would help developers decide if they want to use Boost.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: