Re: [boost] Improving the Boost Review process

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 08:34:05

Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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 ?

And who's going to make those decisions?

> 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) ?

How is this related to library priority?
How is this related to improving the review process?

> 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

How?

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

Everything you're proposing sounds like it adds more process, which
can be extremely hard to manage and will probably slow things down.  

> a) Is the library in the priority list ?

And what if it isn't?

> 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.

The list is pretty self-regulating in this regard.  By the time a
library comes up for formal review, there should have been plenty of
discussion on the list already.  Have you read the process carefully?

> c) Is the library really world-class or broadly useful?  

That's the job of the review.  If we do that in the "high level
review" what's the point in having the "detailed review?"

> 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.

That sounds very theoretical.  Have we had actual problems arise that
would be addressed by this change?

> 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.

How would this improve anything?

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

Who would do that encouraging, and how would he/she do it?

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

Of couse.  They aren't discouraged today.

> 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. 

That's something we could use help in developing.

> This needs thinking but it would be good to get more people to
> contribute to libraries in which they were not the original authors.

Who would get those people to contribute, and how would he/she do it?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com