Re: Proposal: "Newly Endorsed Libraries" section in release notes

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:23 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On March 9, 2026 5:39:24 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> ...


tl;dr for Peter:

Low visibility produces few early adopters.
Few early adopters produce thin reviews.
Thin reviews produce costly libraries.
Costly libraries produce low visibility.

Four lines in the release notes break the cycle at the cheapest point.

wall of text for Andrey:

I do hear the scope objection, but I think the premise is narrower than the
release notes actually are. The release notes have never been limited to
code changes in the tarball. Every release notes page has a "New Libraries"
section that reports an ecosystem event - a library passed review during
this cycle. The notes also list removed libraries, updated tools, and known
issues. The scope already includes "things that happened to Boost since the
last release."

An endorsed library is one step earlier in the same pipeline. Endorsement
is a formal community action with a public record on this list. Reporting
it is no different in kind from reporting that a new library was accepted
or a tool was updated.

Now the practical argument.

Peter, you wrote in October 2023: "Reviews from users count more than
reviews from non-users, of course." And just last November: "We're between
a rock and a hard place here; on one hand, we suffer from a lack of
volunteers who would want to manage reviews." If reviews from users carry
more weight, and we don't have enough reviewers, then anything that
increases the number of people who have actually used a library before its
review directly improves the process you're defending.

Andrey, you diagnosed this problem sixteen years ago. In March 2010 you
wrote: "Boost is rather closed to its community. I don't know how it
happens, but on independent news I regularly read of such projects as KDE,
GNOME, Qt, Linux Kernel and others, but nearly nothing about Boost. The
Boost web site changes rarely - essentially, the news column only lists
recent Boost releases. For an outsider, nothing really happens around
Boost, and that's sad. If Boost was more open and communicated to the public,
I think, there would be much more activity in Boost, and during reviews in
particular."

That is exactly the problem this proposal addresses. The release notes are
the one document where outsiders actually look. A library that arrives at
formal review with zero early adopters produces a worse review. A worse
review produces a library that costs more to maintain after acceptance. The
release notes are the only document with enough readership to materially
change the size of that early-adopter pool. Putting this information
anywhere else is choosing a smaller audience for the information that feeds
review quality.

Andrey, you also pointed out in that same thread: "We are also suffering
from a lack of reviewers. While we all understand time pressures and the
need to complete paying work, the strength of Boost is based on the
detailed and informed reviews submitted by you." Four lines in the release
notes - name, one-line description, link to the endorsement thread, link to
the repository - is a low-cost way to put endorsed libraries in front of
exactly those people.

The proposed section would be clearly separated from the rest of the notes.
It does not editorialize. It reports a fact: these libraries were endorsed
by this community since the last release. I think the benefit to review
quality justifies four lines in a document whose scope already includes
ecosystem events.

Vinnie
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/T7N2QORYGGZAAVAIOBKPTNMBHPIUMGKL/