Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (wasRe: [rfc] rcpp)

Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (wasRe: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-02 07:47:03

vicente.botet wrote:
> From: "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>
> > Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the usual review period is too short for
> > non-trivial libraries.  Many reviews are extended and many
> > reviewers or would-be reviewers express problems with lack of
> > time.  I'm not sure four months (or six as suggested
> > elsewhere) is warranted however.
>
> I suggested up to six month for the support period during
> which the author receives enough interest on the library, not
> the review period.

I'm sorry missed what you meant.  Do you agree with one to two months for the review, then?

> > As Andrey noted elsewhere, reviewers can submit, or at
> > least write, reviews before the review period.  If a reviewer
> > won't have list access during the review period, then submit
> > the review early.  Unfortunately, that's not done.
>
> I think this is not done because the library to review is not fixed.

You're possibly right.  If the review period is extended, then there would be a one to two month period during which the review target is fixed.  I think it would be reasonable for the author to manage a branch containing the latest code with suggested changes and fixes, too.  That would permit those interested in monitoring progress and the effects of their comments to see what's closer to the final version as the review progresses.

> Do you think we can demand the library is fixed as soon as
> the review date is fixed?

I'm not sure we should tie it to when the date is fixed, but rather to a fixed duration leading to the review deadline.  That is, the state of the library should be fixed during the review period, but that period should be longer.

> > Concurrent reviews won't be a problem is the review periods
> > are longer and if a subsequent review must follow the current
> > review by, say, a month.  IOW, if non-trivial reviews are two
> > months, then they would only overlap by one month.
>
> maybe we need to limit the number of parallel reviews, but
> two will be to restrictive.

Two is one more than now.  Wouldn't it be good to start with an incremental change?

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.