From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 13:33:12
Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> Andy Little wrote:
>>> Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However,
>>> the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have
>> been approved on a similar limited number of reviews.
> I think this low number is because people feel they MUST put quite a
> lot of work into a review.
> Provided reviewers state when they only glanced at the submission, I
> think that the sum of all these 'quickies' would be helpful, when
> considered in combination with a few 'in-depth' reviews.
I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a review. For
the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I had only
studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a list of
what I considered to be shortcomings of the library.
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who
repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the
perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that
I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author
in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told
that your design is flawed; however, I simply didn't have sufficient time to
devote to the library. In the end, my "quicky" review wasn't quick at all, since
I ended up writing a long sequence of messages. As a result, I don't plan to
submit reviews in the future unless I have time to study the submissions
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk