From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-01 15:25:54
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Every review of late seems harsher than the one before wrt
> documentation, for example. More and more discussion centers
> around how the proposed idea will look when moved to namespace
> std. (That's always been in the back of many folks' minds around
> Boost, but it is quite upfront now.)
> Many Boost libraries are well on their way to being incorporated
> as is or with relatively minor changes into the standard. I
> think this has given many a sudden reality check that is being
> passed along to others, even if inadvertantly.
> The review process has gotten to where the hapless first-time
> library submitter is pummeled with demands for stellar
> documentation and uncompromising implementation, even before the
> submitter knows whether the library will be accepted. Perhaps my
> own perception is colored, but these things seem harsher of late.
> Reviews of later versions should, rightly, be demanding, but that
> seems to apply to all reviews anymore.
Your characterization of the review process suggests that it is
negative, confrontational, and more painful than helpful to the
reviewee. Boost reviewers, in my experience, neither pummel with
demands, nor deliver harsh criticism.
One recent example comes to mind: Robert Ramey's serialization
library. While some of his reactions during the review seemed to
support your point of view, I think his return with a new design that
meets with nearly unanimous approval proves that the review process
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk