From: Thomas Wenisch (twenisch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-08 22:40:59
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, tom brinkman wrote:
> With 10-15 days allocated per review and a 5-10 day buffer, we will be able
> to review at-most 1 to 2 reviews per month or 12 to 24 libraries per year.
A goal of 24 review per year strikes me as far too ambitious. I think 12
libraries is a more realistic goal (and allows for some dead time, such as
right before a release, where no reviews are in progress).
The reason Boost is so highly respected in the community is because of the
exceptional quality of the libraries it contains. We should not sacrifice
that quality by rushing the review process. This community has
demonstrated time and again that the rigorous (even gruelling) review
process results in superior quality libraries. Good reviews take time (~2
week review period seems reasonable). I am willing to wait a few more
months for a library if it means higher quality.
Do others think that 12 libraries a year is too few? (or too many?)
Computer Architecture Lab
Carnegie Mellon University
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk