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