[boost] Re: [adminitrative] Formal Review Requests

From: Jim Apple (japple_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-22 22:21:25

Jeff Garland wrote:
> http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_schedule.html

Is hopelessly out of date. The version on CVS is better.

>>Looking through the list archives, I'm finding what appear to be a 
>>lot of ignored formal review requests. I must be missing something.
> 
> My guess is that you aren't.  The bar at boost is pretty darn high and there
> is a large number of false starts.  Plus some of what you might be seeing in
> the archive is 'informal review requests'.

I do expect false starts.  It would be nice for the review wizard to 
just say no "out loud", however.

Counting only libraries with a "formal review request" (in the words of 
the authors), I count 7 (fc++, circular_buffer, minmax, 
aligned_storage.hpp, lexicographic, disable unused variable warnings, 
Named Params) libraries/utils with no response from the wizard.

In addition, Thomas Witt said he would add tribool to the review 
schedule, but it's not there, even in CVS.

As a side note, FC++ brought this to my attention, as it it quite 
substantial, went through an informal process first, and then went 
through substantial work to boostify it.  If it isn't eligable for 
formal review, I'd love to know.

I dunno, maybe I missed the note.  I don't want to jump to conclusions here.

I also am not trying to be too hard on anyone here. Doubleplus thanks go 
to the volunteers that make the administration stuff tick.

Jim