[boost] Improving the Boost Review process

From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-20 12:48:12

I would like to bring up some ideas to improve the review process:

1. Have a priority list with the new libraries that boost users need
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) must have libraries
b) nice to have
c) interesting

e.g. is Boost.SQL a nice to have or a must have ? is a Boost.Relational (e.g.
RTL-like) a nice to have or a must have ?

e.g. the current Property List library being reviewed:
- shouldn't it be part of the existing program options library (if its
intended usage is similar to program options library vs a generic tree
container) ?

This would help people working on related libraries to focus their effort or
even contribute when they were not planning to. Also, review time will be
optimized and the review queue can be prioritized based on this list. The
names can be proposed at this stage so that they are general as intended.

This could also help identify existing libraries that need to evolve,  like
the ongoing effort in Boost.Threads

2. Have a high level review before a detailed review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) Is the library in the priority list ?
b) Should it be a separate library or merge with an existing one ? There can
be lots of small libraries but many might not continue to evolve or be
world-class.
c) Is the library really world-class or broadly useful?  There can be
libraries that have multiple functionality but none is great. A good example
for this is with libraries that incorporate some xml functionality but it's
very limited and then you have to rely on another library for broader usage.

The priority should be to add libraries that are designed with the intent of
becoming a world-class library (even if they offer limited functionality
when reviewed). The outcome of the high level review should be whether to
engage in a detailed review or wait till some conditions are met.

3. Encourage specialized libraries
-------------------------------------------------

There are many libraries that have a smaller audience but if they are
designed to be world-class then they bring value to boost.

Also, there has to be a process so that libraries can continue to evolve
once they are part of boost, considering that in many cases the original
authors may not be available to contribute. This needs thinking but it would
be good to get more people to contribute to libraries in which they were not
the original authors.