From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 08:34:35
Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I don't see the first real review happening without some group with
>> the main responsibility. And I don't see very small contributions
>> happening on their own because I fear the big picture is lost.
> I completely agree. Mini-reviews are very good idea, provided, the
> there is a person/group that is responsible for the overal picture for
> a particular algorithms group.
Fine, but let's not get caught in a trap of trying to review every new
function or algorithm. Traditionally, once a library is accepted, its
maintainer is free to expand its functionality at will. We should
have some way to determine that certain contributions ought to be
reviewed, so that we don't get bogged down in beaurocracy. Perhaps
this ought to be at the discretion of the maintainer?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk