From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-05 10:16:55
Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
> Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> > Jeff Garland wrote:
> >> Note that I expect the review for SOCI to be tough because it's a fairly
> >> large and complex domain/lib. So we ought to ask the review manager
> >> for a longer review right up front.
> > That's reasonable.
> Seems like you might want to get in the queue now...
> > The SOCI library stands out a bit in the crowd thanks to its basic
> > interfacing assumptions. Some users love it exactly because of its
> > interface and some others hate it exactly for the same reason.
> > This already proved to be a recipe for heat generator.
> Hmm, I guess my memory of this is short. I can't do anything at the moment
> since I'm already over committed, but I'll try to do an informal review over
> the holidays to ferret out any issues.
Isn't this an instance of a more general problem? Existing libraries that are
being considered for submission to Boost should get a sort of pre-review so that
their developers may tackle the emerging issues while they proceed with
Boostification, rather than after the fact. Should worse come to worse they'd be
in a position to decide to pospone or give up their submission before investing
too much effort into it.
I wonder if such pre-reviews should be given some official status, if just to
try and attract a higher number of reviewers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk