|
Boost : |
Subject: [boost] tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
From: Stjepan Rajko (stjepan.rajko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 12:09:08
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Robert Jones <robertgbjones_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:40 AM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>>
>> * I had notice only at the end of the the review that the review tokes
>> place on two mailing lists (devel ans user). Maybe this is usaual on Boost
>> reviews but I was not aware. It will be more transaparent if all the reviews
>> were posted to the same mailing list, maybe a specific one should be
>> created.
>>
>
> A specific maillist for reviews strikes me as an excellent idea. In Joels'
> review
> of his Phoenix 2.0 library there were some outstanding contributions from
> people I don't see posting very often, but who apparently feel moved to do
> important stuff like reviewing. These comments did much to give me some
> historical context, and understanding of structure, alternatives and
> implementation
> decisions. These will inevitably be lost in the general background noise of
> on going developments, and it would be nice to have a clear place for these
> review comments.
>
Perhaps it would be sufficient to *strongly stress* that any post
related to the ongoing review should have [review] in the subject
line? (although that doesn't address the problem of having the review
on both the dev and user lists...)
Stjepan
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk