[boost] Quality assurance (was Re: [tools][bcp] using boost internally in other libraries)

From: Richard Jennings (richard.jennings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 08:48:57

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:51:42 +0100, David Abrahams  
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Again, and as I mentioned to John, there are allways room for
>> improvement, but I do think the boost developers do a lot.  I bring
>> this up because it is a genuine concern whenever you deal with
>> sub-contractors or whatever, and it also apply to use of open
>> source.
>
> I understand the notion of QA in general, but I want to know
> specifically what you think QA should look like, or look more like,
> for Boost.
>
>> Boost and or Boost Consulting could possibly make a more prominent  
>> reference
>> to QA efforts and procedures on their web sites.  At least have a  
>> bullet for
>> it an tie together the procedures you have with peer reviews, testing,
>> regression testing, bug tracking, change management, public developer  
>> mailing
>> list.  Then you can call this web page and its guidelines your Quallity
>> Assuruance Plan.
>
> Okay, that's a great idea.  Boost Consulting's website desperately
> needs an overhaul anyway.
>

I'm going to need to do a formal assessment of the 'quality' of Boost  
libraries
and so this caught my eye.  I did some more reading on the Boost web site  
about
the review procedures, code guidelines, etc., etc.  It seems to me that  
Boost
has its procedures in place and documented and what would help someone  
assessing
Boost is a higher profile for them.

So I'd support the idea of a page called something like Quality Assurance  
Plan.
Perhaps a section for library development and one on Boost releases with  
links
to the existing guidelines.

One thing I don't see documented is how review managers are selected  
(beyond
there being a queue which the Review Wizard manages).  The peer review  
allows
anyone to submit comments and it's up to the review manager and library
author to consider them.  How do we know that the review manager has  
suitable
experience of Boost and C++ (or whatever) to carry out his/her role?

Ultimately it seems that the quality of Boost rests on the experience of  
its
library authors and reviewers, so how does an observer assess that?

Richard