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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk