Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Concept names?

From: Carlo Wood (carlo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 17:38:32

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:13:39PM -0500, David Greene wrote:
> That said, I very much want to encourage further work on this library.
> It _is_ very important.  I'm disappointed that Andy does not seem
> committed to it.  The volume of feedback indicates that there's a
> lot of interest.

It is very hard for a volunteer to put a life-time of work into
a library when he doesn't even know whether or not it will be accepted.

I've followed the review of PQS with great interest, and was
amazed by Andy's patience and politeness. Yet, the end result of
the review is a list of things that are "wrong" with the "currently
unusable library". No wonder that he wisely thinks: I'm wasting
my time here. I think it's smart to bail out before wasting MORE time.

Here is how I think that a review procedure could be improved:
1) It should be devided into at least five votes:
   A. Is the concept ok? Do we want SUCH a library in boost?
   B. Is the presented library a good starting point, or do
      we think we should start from scratch?
   C. Is the presented API of the library on the right track?
   D. Is the internal implementation on the right track?
   E. Is the documentation good enough for a boost library?
2) If the answer is NO to any of the above questions,
   then either it should be accompanied with a constructive
   list of improvements (if *this* was added/there THEN I
   would vote yes), or the vote shouldn't be counted.
   Then the author has something to work with.
   Such a procedure would be a motivation: if I continue
   to work on it, and add this, improve that, change this,
   then it WILL be accepted.
3) A library should be accepted as soon as it is "good enough".
   Nothing motivates a volunteer open source coder more than
   having their code already in the CVS repository and starting
   to build a userbase. 
   If a library is added when it's at 80%, then you can almost
   be SURE that as a result the author will carry it to 99% all
   by himself with needing any 'pressure' from others.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo_at_[hidden]>