Re: [boost] How to review futures?

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-09 16:31:33

John Phillips wrote:
>    I'm looking to see if there are any good ideas for how to review the 
> two futures libraries that are both currently in the queue. Since they 
> are two different approaches to the same problem domain, isolated 
> sequential reviews does not seem to be a good idea.
> 
>    So far, the best thought I've had on the subject is to run a single 
> review that includes both libraries, where it is explicitly part of the 
> review to discuss which parts of which realizations are the best choice. 
> This process will need to keep the proposals before the committee in 
> mind, but it is a way to compare and contrast the strengths of the two 
> in close proximity. If we do this, there are a couple of questions that 
> should be added to the usual review process.
> 
> * Which interface choices are best suited to the problem domain?
> * Should Boost offer competing implementations of this feature?
> * Should the libraries be melded together?
> * Should a subset of the approved library be restricted to only the 
> facilities and interface in the standardization committee proposal?
> 
>    There are my initial thoughts. I would like to hear from others on 
> this, as well. I especially would like to hear from the authors and from 
> anyone who has been involved in the evolving standards proposal. Thanks 
> for your ideas.

Just wanted to make a point that we may have a similar situation with 
the logging library if I manage to finish it before John's review starts.

I do agree that the best solution would be either a single review or two 
parallel reviews. The second way is better for the reviews can be 
managed by different managers which splits the workload between them. 
However, I've never managed a review and I don't know if that would be 
possible/reasonable.