[boost] Re: Typeof: Review result

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 15:21:20

Jonathan Turkanis  wrote:

> Another easy improvement would be to add accepted libraries under a
> probation or beta period of say six months.   The library would remain
> beta until its stable enough and has additional time for more user
> scrutiny.  A prominent boost member would make the judgement about
> when to remove the library from its beta period.  During the beta
> period, the library author would be asked to complete the libraries
> documentation, examples and requested changes from the additional user
> scrutiny.

>> Why make a library which has been in development for a long time and has
>> received intense scrutiny undergo a probationary period?

When a library is in the beta period, the author could change the
public interfaces based upon the usablity concerns of its users.  In
some cases, as most library's take many-many months to fully
appreciate and learn, this could be a benefit.

I see that the term "beta" is ubiquitious and basically means that the
"technology" is in active development and may change before its final
release.  Labeling newly accepted libraries as "beta" for a time would
give the libfrary author more time to refine the submission.

> 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.

>> This sounds similar to the mentoring idea that was proposed after
the >> >> OOPSLA meeting. I think it's a good idea, as long as you
expand the list of
>> "prominents" to include all active library authors and maintainers.

Agreed.

Review Wizard,
Tom Brinkiman

Jonathan