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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk