Re: [boost] Re: Typeof: Review result

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 13:55:46

On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:

> "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]> wrote
>
>> If there are no objections, I will start requesting that libraries
>> under review be sponsered by at least prominent boost member.  This
>> would ensure that accepted libraries meet the approval of a least one
>> prominent boost member.
>
> Are we going to have an election on which boost member is considered
> "prominent"?  Or is there such division already? :-)

If you have to ask, we can't tell you :)

> Seriously, I think the number of reviews is most closely related to 
> the the
> interest, and so the problem may actually be at much earlier stage.
> Theoretically the libraries that don't raise enough interest should not
> reach the review stage.

At one point we had discussed--maybe even decided on--a policy whereby 
a review request had to be "seconded" by someone that had looked over 
the library to be sure that it was in good shape. Obviously, that 
"someone" would be an interested third party that was not involved in 
development of the library. If nobody is interested, nobody will 
second.

> Also, please note, that in case of typeof, a very active support of a 
> very
> prominent boost member, didn't ensure large number of reviews.
>
> Meanwhile I am very much puzzled with the inconsistency of rather high
> download activity and relatively low amount of feedback the Typeof 
> library
> has received on the list.  If somebody could offer a reasonable 
> explanation
> of this fact, it would help us a lot in our future work with boost.

I think Jody is right on. I know that I really wanted to review the 
typeof library, but the upcoming release has sucked up what little time 
I've been able to spare for Boost. More time for reviews may be the 
answer.

        Doug