Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention

Subject: Re: [boost] Re view Queue Needs Attention
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-25 00:07:36

>> What's the difference between a non-stable branch as you're suggesting and
>> the existing sandbox? The only difference I could see is to establish some
>> kind of pre-review process. But that would just move the problem to a
>> different spot, no?

The "non-stable" branch would be for libraries that have requested reviews
or for "approved" libraries that have not yet stabilized.

The "sand-box" branch would be for all other libraries that either have not
requested reviews or don't plan to.

The "review-wizards" John or Ronald or any of the "boost-moderators"
could monitor the
"non-stable" branch.

This would clear the review queue.

The only important review would be to establish when a particular
library has achieved sufficient maturity
to be moved from the "non-stable" branch to the "stable" branch.

Once a library is in the "non-stable" branch, the library could be
reviewed by anyone anytime.
There would be no need for scheduled reviews, like we've had, although
they could
still be done, if the review manager wants to schedule it.

The reviews would be ongoing and done in a blog format, not limited to
a ten day block of time.

After a library has been in the "non-stable" branch for say six
months, the review manager could
posts its progress to the mailing list and pose questions to elicit
more feedback.

The "non-stable" branch would be included as part of the boost
installation, but only an
optional part, not required.

If a library is distributed as "non-stable",  it
should get lots and lots of attention.  Nothing focuses an authors
mind more than
if they know that their library is going to get some exposure.

The libraries in the review queue are not getting the exposure that
they need, and
are just sitting there for 6-18 months.  Very few people are actually aware
of these libraries.

A better job needs to done to elicit feedback from domain experts.  Having
only a 10 day review period is way to short.   It needs to be like 6-12 months,
where the domain experts can contribute at their leisure.

This could best be done if a "non-stable" branch is created, which is
distributed
along with the "stable" branch.