Apply rule: Add “sandbox-” prefix to libraries that fall under the category of “not ready for review”

[neatudarius]

As per March 16, 2026 Beman Weekly meeting we adopted: "PROPOSAL: Add “sandbox-” prefix to libraries that fall under the category of “not ready for review”."

TODOs:

• Add this entry into the Beman Standard doc ?
• Update the website list of libraries to excluded sandbox libraries.
  • Note: We don't have sandbox-* libraries on website.
  • We can add a rule for CI to fail if we will add such entry on the website.

[neatudarius]

@ednolan , can you help with a clarification here?

Q1: We want to actually add this prefix only to the repo name? (Not to the library name itself - https://github.com/bemanproject/sandbox-expected/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L7).
Q2: If the answer to Q1 is yes, I suppose we should not add this entry to the Beman Standard. Please let me know if you have other opinion.

[ednolan]

Q1: Yeah.
Q2: I don't think we necessarily need a rule for this in the standard.

[JeffGarland]

catching up here. I don't want to start doing this except for repos that have clearly fallen silent. If we did, inplace_vector might be a victim for example. My recollection of the discussion here was surrounding libs that were just copies of examplar and hadn't gone any further.

We're going start doing reviews promptly and moving more libraries to production-ready. I expect to do at least 3 repos in Aspen.

[JeffGarland]

Additional notes after some discussion with Eddie. Some criteria for how to identify those to move to sandbox: 1) library is in an early stage (aka not production ready) 2) No active development on any branch in ~60 days and 3) attempts to contact the primary author fail. We could certainly setup some sort of periodic action to flag repos that fail the first 2.