Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)

Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-28 13:32:32

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Diener" <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)

> 
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Hi Gennadiy,
>> 
> snip...
>>> 4. Review process.
>>> The candidate review can start at any time by the review manager (no
>>> queue) and should take at least 2-4 month. There can be any number of
>>> reviewed being run concurrently. The "candidate review" page should
>>> include abstract, review package, and some kind of review submission
>>> mechanism (maybe boolean yes/no + an actual review). The review should
>>> be per person and each reviewer should have an ability to modify the
>>> review.
>>> Review discussion mechanism can be web based on rely on mailing list or
>>> some mixture of these.
>> 
>> I disagree, in several points.
>> 
>> * 2-4 months is a very long period. You can't expect review manager and 
>> the library authors focused on the review that long. Also, for simple 
>> tools, such as Boost.Move that is in the queue now, there's nothing to 
>> review during all that time. On the other hand, I agree that a few weeks 
>> may not be enough for some larger scaled libraries. Which leads me to 
>> conclusion that the review duration should be individual, decided by the 
>> author, review manager and review wizards, taking into account other 
>> reviews.
>> 
>> * Concurrent reviews is wrong. We don't have enough reviewers and 
>> wizards to make sequential reviews. Allowing parallel reviews won't make 
>> it better. The review quality will also drop.
> 
> I disagree with you here and agree with Gennadiy Rozental. In order to 
> get more libraries reviewed and possible approved more quickly overall, 
> and also to allow reviewers more time to review a library than is 
> currently given for Boost reviews, I feel it is important that 
> concurrent reviews take place with each one lasting over a longer time 
> period than currently usually occurs.
> 
> One of the biggest factors in keeping possible reviewers from reviewing 
> a Boost library is that the usual two week time frame is just not 
> enough. One month would not be unjustified and perhaps two months would 
> not be too long. In order to get more libraries reviewed given a longer 
> time frame for each review, it would be necessary to allow reviews of 
> more than one Boost library at a time.

Currently the reviewer can sent reviews before the review starts. The single problem I see is that we don't use to do it.
IMO, the contents of the library to reviex muste be fixed as soon as a date is announced. The review manager could call for reviews at the same time s/he announce the date of the review.

Best,
Vicente