From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 17:12:54
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]>
>> I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been
>> accepted into Boost.
> Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
>> There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
> While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library
> specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library
> that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
Yes. Less than ideal.
> While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were
> by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result.
> Should this be the norm?
Definitely it shouldn't be the norm. In this case, I'm glad the library was
I've been looking forward to the typeof review for a long time, but wasn't able
to particpate because of preparation for the release. Maybe it's not a good idea
to have reviews when a release is imminent.
We might considered a rule that there have to be a certain minimum number of
thorough positive reviews before acceptance, but in my view a review manager
ought to be able to give appropriate weight to the fact that there were a small
number of reviews and accept the library if appropriate.
Perhaps the best thing would be for some daring review manager to set a
precedent by rejecting a library on the basis of too few reviews. (Has this ever
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk