From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-10 14:57:45
"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> | Sent: 09 September 2004 03:27
> | To: boost_at_[hidden]
> | Cc: reportbase_at_[hidden]
> | Subject: [boost] Re: [admin] Overlapping reviews -- should
> | this be allowed?
> | I wonder if enough libraries are going through the preliminary
> | submission/refinement phase outlined at
> | http://www.boost.org/more/submission_process.htm#Preliminary
> I strongly agree with this - IMO far too many libraries are only
> getting serious attention at the review stage, when useful input is
> really much too late.
> And in many cases there is far too little user 'real-life'
> experience - the source of useful examples and confirmation that
> theory matches practice.
> I think we need to somehow get much closer to final agreement before the
> Formal review stage, when, in a way, acceptance should be almost a
> Is a two stage review/acceptance process a way to improve?
> 1 Float the idea.
> 2 Get some support.
> 3 Get some feedback.
> 4 'in principle' review and if OK then
> 5 Boost library 'candidate' status, and move to a separate 'nearly ready'
> files area.
> 5 Refine with feedback.
> 6 Formal review, and if OK then else revert to 'nearly ready'.
> 7 Formal acceptance.
> 8 Add to next Boost release.
My fear is that this process would be too slow and heavyweight. IMO
it should be up to the Review Wizard to only schedule reviews for
libraries that have gone through the preliminaries.
-- 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