From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-25 13:42:24
Jody Hagins wrote:
> I believe I could have contributed in a non trivial manner to several
> reviews. However, by the time I see the announcement, download the
> materials, go through them, and try to keep up with the current
> comments, the review is over. I am so busy with work, family,
> coaching (American) football, and other activities, that the review
> usually seem too short (for me, at least).
This is also true for me. However, I think the review periods do not
necessarily have to be extended. What has to be extended is the
timeframe in which there will be no significant changes (interface &
docs) to a candidate library. Libraries sometimes go through extensive
changes right before the reviews start, which is probably the reason why
people don't have a look beforehand. Maybe the review process should
mandate a no-interface-and-docs-changes period of one month before the
actual formal review starts, with announcements when this period begins?
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk