From: João Abecasis (jpabecasis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 23:15:30
For those who missed it, I suggested on the "Languishing review
requests" thread that we keep track of Review Requests and Applications
for Review Managers in the ticketing system. The goal being to avoid the
"silent rejection" problem.
A bonus side-effect is that each proposed library gets a unique place
where it's progress along the Boost process can be tracked. Comments on
library review requests would include links to relevant discussion on
the list and rationale for decisions made. Each ticket would be closed
upon final acceptance and merging of the code in the trunk, or rejection
of the library.
Below I offer some suggestions on how this could work, just to get the
* Ticket Type: we could use one or two more ticket types: (Library)
Review Requests and a Review Manager Application. Perhaps a single
generic "Review Request" would work just as well, to begin with.
We could also reuse one of the existing ticket types (e.g. Tasks?), but
I think a clearer separation would work better.
* Reporter: The person submitting the review request or RM application
* Status: Assigned would be used when a Review Manager has been
assigned. He is responsible for "closing" the review ticket.
* Owner: per above, this would be the Review Manager for a library
submission and the Review Wizard for other types of requests.
* Milestone: Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but this could be used to follow
the library library submission process
(http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm). This allows one to check
at a glance libraries in each stage. It could also clutter the Roadmap
page. None of these Milestone Steps would advance: tickets would
progress from one to another.
* Version: Version of Boost with which the library was tested? Version
for inclusion after acceptance?
* Component: "Boost Process"
And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in
general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with
no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How
about potential review managers? ...
All comments welcome.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk