[boost] Review Queue Needs Attention

Subject: [boost] Review Queue Needs Attention
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-24 12:28:06

Paul A. Bristow said

>> Yes - *exposure* is the key to inspiring authors to refine their contributions.

>> I've argued for some time for a 'experimental' or 'candidate' status.

>> (And a state not damned with faint praise like 'unstable' - which is perhaps
>> better described as 'likely_to_be_improved' rather than actively 'not stable').

>> We'd need a simpler review process to agree to put a library into this
>> 'candidate state' from the 'sandbox state'.

>> This would mean that when libraries are reviewed for full acceptance, they
>> should have received much more use, feedback and refinement, and be really ready
>> for use by those who want a 'release quality' stable product - including decent
>> documentation.

Agreed.

Here is the current review queue.

1) Lexer  	Ben Hanson
2) Shifted Pointer 	Phil Bouchard
3) Logging 	John Torjo 	
4) Join 	Yigong Liu 	
5) Pimpl 	Vladimir Batov 	
6) Task 	Oliver Kowalke 	
7) Endian 	Beman Dawes 	
8) Meta State Machine (MSM) 	Christophe Henry
9) Conversion 	Vicente Botet
10) Sorting 	Steven Ross
11) GIL.IO 	Christian Henning
12) AutoBuffer 	Thorsten Ottosen
14) Log 	Andrey Semashev
15) String Convert 	Vladimir Batov
16) Move 	Ion Gaztañaga
17) Containers 	Ion Gaztañaga 	
18) Interval Containers 	Joachim Faulhaber 	
19) Type Traits Extensions 	Frédéric Bron
20) Interthreads 	Vicente Botet
21) Bitfield 	Vicente Botet
22) Lockfree	Ivo
23) Faster Signam slots  Helge Bahmann

The number of review requests is
far outstripping the number of volunteer review managers.

Considering about six libraries per year are getting reviewed, this
is well over a three year back log.  And this does not even include
some other libraries that have been discussed, but not included.  There
are alot of good ideas here, they should not be ignored.   Some of these
libraries have been in the queue for over 18 months.

My idea to fix this is well known.

I would like something similar to Paul's approach.

Those of you who have argued against a "non-stable" branch of boost,
how would you propose fixing this "review queue" problem.