From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-27 08:47:25
On Jul 27, 2004, at 6:42 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> It's up to you whether
>> to introduce yet another kind of review process, but I'm concerned
>> that might end up with a hodgepodge of not-very-thoroughly-inspected
>> and not-very-interoperable components. So, how will we keep the
>> overall quality high?
> I propose that we use some time to establish a reasonable amount of
> categories of algorithms. We already have string related,
> I'm working on statistics related, and there are probably more
> categories out there. Then, once we have these categories, one
> or two persons (preferable persons with domain knowlegde) must take
> responsibility for the overall quality of that library and
> inspect new mini-submissions and work with the new authors to ensure
> contribution will fit into the overall scheme. Then a formal
> mini-review should follow.
At what point are there enough algorithms under the same category that
we should just call it a "full" review?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk