In the course of updating the Boost Library Incubator website, I
gathered some summary statistics which some might find interesting.
40 Number of libraries submitted
2 libraries not accepted into the incubator of lack docs, test, etc.
11 libraries reviews by boost
All in all, I'm thinking these numbers aren't too bad for boost and the
incubator. I would like to see more submissions - but the submissions
we've received seem to be better than average quality and worthy of
consideration. Hopefully this has made the review process more efficient.
A couple of libraries have also been accepted (and rejected) without
having been placed in the incubator. The number is small. I think this
validates the incubator as useful, but not necessary and libraries
authors should continue to be encouraged, but not required, to submit
library candidates to the incubator. Other than the above, I'm not
going to try to draw any conclusions from the above admittedly anecdotal
I would also remind boosters that if you're logged into the incubator,
you can display statistics on viewership for a particular library by
using the "Display Statistics" button on the library page. This is a
crude but someone engaging way to get an idea of how many people have
looked at the library page. The attached shows visits to the safe
numerics library page in the last 90 days.
On 4/20/17 8:29 AM, Hans Dembinski via Boost wrote:
>>> Shouldn't libraries be removed from the incubator once they are part of boost?
Hmmm - the following are good points and deserve a response. Here it is:
> The Boost Incubator is called an incubator, so just starting from the name I thought it should only list libraries which are still incubated, not those already hatched and happily running about. There are some practical arguments as well:
True - maybe I should change the name of the incubator.
> - Libraries accepted into Boost are listed on boost.org, so listing them also on blincubator seems unnecessary.
I've always been dissatisfied with the library listing at boost.org. a)
It doesn't group libraries like it used to.
b) It doesn't have ready access information such as:
1) What version of C++ it supports
2) What the preference is for posting issues
3) Doesn't encourage cloning a single boost sublibrary
4) Other relevant operations.
c) I had hoped that the library page would would keep the history of
reviews for the library and commentary. And I would like to see more
reviews/commentary on the library accessible in a convenient way even
after the library is officially accepted. To my disappointment, this
hasn't panned out but I haven't given up hope. Perhaps re-implementing
the comment/histry mechanism to hook into the boost developer's list
Actually, one might think that I have an agenda to replace the boost
library page with a better one. He would be correct. It's easier to
propose/implement an alternative than trying to get a consensus.
Eventually the less useful alternative dies out from disuse.
> - Duplicated records which need to be kept in sync manually tend to become inconsistent.
Right - it's a pain - for me.
> - Having a shorter list on the blincubator makes scanning the list of projects by eye easier.
Right - what should do is tweak the script so one could display
libraries according to status, functional group, etc. as well as
alphabetically by name. Since there's only 40 libraries in there as of
now, it hasn't been a priority - and I hate php scripting.