Re: [boost] Re: Mini-reviews

From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 10:37:43

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:34:35AM -0700, David Abrahams wrote:
> 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?
> 

This is fine with me and probably should be fine with most of the maintainers.
However, now I'm starting to get lost what was the original idea of mini-reviews?

Maybe thay can be used to check facilities, that are not strictly related
to a particular library/group and to promote them to something official.
But AFAIR fast-track reviews were designed for this purpose.

Any ideas?

Pavol