Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-08 14:56:23

From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> > My only suggestion for shortening the formal review period would be to somehow
> > encourage or develop reviews of libraries in advance -- thus reducing the
> > amount of comment during the formal review. Anyone can go review boost::fsm,
> > just to pick one, and go review the code and docs and post it to the list.
> > The problem is, however, there is an additional dynamic during the formal
> > review -- reviewers read other reviews and discuss them. Perhaps if there was
> > a way of gathering review comments over a longer period (via wiki page or
> > something) we could shorten this last phase.
> This sounds like a good idea. But would it require that proposed libraries be

I think this might be workable.

> frozen for a certain period before the formal review begins? I know I took
> advantage of the long wait (something like 8 months) between proposal and review
> of iostreams to make lots of improvements, some as recent as one month ago.

Perhaps a library must be frozen to be submitted for review,
provided the review occurs within 30 days (or some such time)
after being put on the review queue. If the author decides some
dramatic changes are in order, the library would be withdrawn
from the review queue, changes would be made to it, and it would
be resumbitted when ready again. Otherwise, early reviewers
would be looking at a moving target.

Perhaps for a library to be put on the review queue, it must be
carefully reviewed by a panel, of some minimum size, not
including those closely following or involved in the development
of the library. IOW, get some fresh, independent perspective on
the library, which should flesh out many documentation issues and
even some design issues, prior to the formal review. Such
reviews could take place via e-mail or on the Wiki.

Still, larger libraries take time to be reviewed, and invite lots
of comments and discussion. If a person reviewed a library ahead
of time, their review would appear early in the review cycle.
However, others would still need time to perform an on-demand
review, so you really can't compress the review period. This
process would just help to ensure that libraries are more mature
before being subjected to a formal review.

Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer           
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at