Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)

Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-29 16:56:38

On 12/29/2010 3:30 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:58:52 -0500,
> Stewart, Robert wrote:
>>
>> Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Dave Abrahams
>>> <dave_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>>> At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:56:19 +0800,
>>>> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'd +2 if you said a review should be open until the
>>>>> library gets into the main distribution. And even after that,
>>>>> reviewing the quality of the library should be on-going and
>>>>> shouldn't stop at the point of inclusion into Boost. ;)
>>>>
>>>> _That_ is a really cool idea.
>>>
>>> I liked too. How many times I wanted to review a library, but didn't
>>> find any time in the two or three weeks they were being reviewed.
>>> Sometimes these libraries are in the review queue for much longer
>>> than that, and a review could've been possible before or even after.
>>
>> There's nothing stopping you from submitting reviews for any of the
>> pending libraries right now.
>
> Yeah, but there's nothing encouraging it either.  It would be cool to
> have a system that made it more rewarding to write reviews of Boost
> libraries, in such a way that reviews would continue after the review
> period.  Of course, that's mostly social engineering and someone would
> have to figure out how to accomplish it :-)
>
> Maybe if the reviews were more carefully archived and somehow viewable
> separately from everything else, that'd be a first step.  Just
> thinking out loud, now.

Well.. This is actually a solved social network problem. The obvious way 
to handle this is to post reviews to a web site in addition to the list 
organized by libraries, of course. The reviews would be available 
long-term and linked from the libraries listing (and the library 
itself). Making it so people can vote on reviews, and hence meta-vote on 
libraries, it might accomplish the social aspect. The immediate choice 
would be to structure it like stackoverflow. Hence people have some 
social competition impetus to do numerous quality reviews.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail