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