From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 15:27:49
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis
> I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a
> the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I
> studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a
> what I considered to be shortcomings of the library.
> I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library
> repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to
> perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my
> is that
> I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the
> in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when
> are told
> that your design is flawed; however, I simply didn't have sufficient
> devote to the library.
[Brian Braatz Writes:]
What are the expectations here? I find myself in this spot frequently. I
see something up for review, and it ALWAYS happens at the worst time for
me. I look at it, but I tend to not say much unless I can REALLY devote
the time needed to give the library the proper amount of review time.
There might be "no answer" to the expectations questions. But I would be
curious how others feel about this.
I.e. If I only have an hour or two to look at something- is it still
useful for me to submit a review?
Part of the problem I have is an enormous respect for what a boost
library is. It is not something one slaps together just to get their
name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go "Wow". if
it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost.
But if I cannot devote the time needed to review something DEEPLY, I
feel it is somewhat disrespectful for me to participate.
Do you guys think I am wrong to feel this way? Or do you find the
opinions of a quick review valuable?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk