Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention

Subject: Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-24 22:45:19

Tom Brinkman-2 wrote:
> 
>>> judging by the review schedule (almost no review managers), that would
>>> mean
>>> boost isn't very interested in new libraries in general.
> 
> It would seem so.
> 
>>> I would recommend that authors try find a review manager before they
>>> request a review.
> 
> Review managers are generally recruited from people that already have a
> library
> that has been approved in boost, that means you luke (hint).
> 
> The wizards could open it up to anyone.  Its been considered, but
> rejected in the past.
> 
> I would like to focus attention on something different.
> 
> That would be creating a "non-stable"
> branch of boost, where the proposed libraries would live for a while, get
> some
> exposure.
> 

There had already a lot of review managers that do not have a library
accepted, for example

Thread-Safe Signals  	Frank Hess  	Stjepan Rajko
Finite State Machines  	Andrey Semashev  	Martin Vuille
Singleton (fast-track)  	Tobias Schwinger  	John Torjo
Switch  	Steven Watanabe  	Stejpan Rajko
Physical Quantities System  	Andy Little  	Fred Bertsch
binary_int  	Scott Schurr and Matt Calabrese  	Pavel Vozenilek
Xpressive  	Eric Niebler  	Thomas Witt
Typeof  	Arkadiy Vertleyb and Peder Holt  	Andy Little
Singleton  	Jason Hise  	Pavel Vozenilek
State Chart  	Andreas Huber  	Pavel Vozenilek
Promotion Traits (fast-track)  	Alexander Nasonov  	Tobias Schwinger
Output Formatters  	Reece Dunn  	John Torjo
FC++  	Brian McNamara & Yannis Smaragdakis  	Mat Marcus
Fixed-Point Decimal  	Bill Seymour  	Jens Maurer
Math Constants  	Paul A. Bristow  	Jaap Suter
...

and there are other on the review queue

AutoBuffer  Thorsten Ottosen  Robert Stewart  	
Task  	Oliver Kowalke  	 Vicente Botet  	

without forgotten the review Wizard John R. Phillips  and Tom Brinkman

Accumulators  	Eric Niebler  	John R. Phillips
Function Types (Re-review)  	Tobias Schwinger  	Tom Brinkman
Generic Image Library  	Lubomir Bourdev  	Tom Brinkman
Wave  	Hartmut Kaiser  	Tom Brinkman

As you can see review manager is not restricted to library authors. I call
any invested booster to request the possibility to be the review manager of
a library if he knows the domain. 

Since most libraries are header file only, it should not be a problem.
 While not all
will compile on all platforms, and certainly not have perfect
documentation, it would
be a place for future boost authors to elicit feedback.

The experimental libraries would not affect the core boost libraries
in any way.

I'm absolutely convinced that it would encourage lots more participation.

There is so much more to do, we haven't even scratched the surface of what
is possible.  The core boost authors have put in place a wonderful place
to come and share ideas, but we are letting it flounder.

I don't see clearly which will be the criteria for including a library in
this non-stable group. Any suggestions?
Which test platforms will be available to test the non-stable libraries, the
same as the trunck?
Will these libraries be delivered?
Doesn't the Sandbox pays already the role of non-stable libraries?  

Best,
Vicente

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Review-Queue-Needs-Attention-tp26500094p26507135.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.