Re: [boost] Languishing review requests

From: Johan Råde (rade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 10:30:19

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Jun 13 2007, "more effective thinking in the exceptional C++ programming language" <effective.thinking-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would like to give my testimonial on this point...
>>
>> A few days ago I subscribed to this mailing list because I wanted to share
>> with the boost community the results of my experiments with the
>> random_on_sphere distribution. I uploaded a ready to read pdf file with the
>> method, the results and a proposal to modify the current implementation
>> (that is 20 times slower than it could be)...
>>
>> I expected a quick decision since I took the pain to make everything clear
>> in the document. I did not understood anything to what happens here. I got
>> some feedback from users of the mailing list and that's it! Nobody took the
>> formal review in charge.
> 
> Did you realize that it's too early to ask for a formal review?
> 
> There are 4 steps in our process before formal review should be
> requested: http://www.boost.org/more/submission_process.htm
> 

Does a new implementation of the uniform random distribution on a sphere really require a formal review?
Couldn't just the maintainer of the Boost.Random library decide whether to incorporate this code 
into the library?

--
Johan Råde