Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-01 16:18:38
Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 07:52 AM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> I understand, and last thing I would've wanted in this area is being
> hasty. But that doesn't change the shape of things - the standard is way
> behind modern tendencies and technologies that are needed on a daily
> basis. IMHO, by the time C++1x is out, it will be outdated already.
Somehow I do not agree. It will take good several years at best for the
new features to be implemented and even more to properly being used in
users' code. On the other hand it depends on what you mean by "modern
tendencies". Maybe it's good we are behind.
>> Well, I do not expect years either. Take Boost.Log for example. I
>> honestly expect that for the library to get accepted it should be
>> reviewed for period of at least 6 month. Until people try it in actual
>> projects, write some code with it, it will never be clear if the
>> candidate is viable. No amount of theorization within 1-2 week is going
>> to be acceptable IMO.
> If you want to base the accept/reject decision on practical experience
> of the library users, then even 6 months is not enough. It becomes a
> matter of years. But if that is the case I would suggest to drop review
> practice altogether, at least in its current form. It would be much more
> practical to follow the idea of separated Boost distributions - the core
> libraries that were verified by time and other, less mature libraries
> (perhaps, in individual packages).
> The barrier for a library to enter the "hall of fame" of core libraries
> can be rather high, and may require X years of practical usage and
> include a review. But that review should not be too long since the
> library itself should be well known already. On the other hand, in order
> for a library to become a newbie under Boost umbrella, there should not
> be a requirement of a long usage in the fields. It should be fairly
> quick and easy to put the library into Boost, provided that formal
> requirements are met.
IMO Boost.Log is one of those libraries which are rather difficult to do
right. Primarily due to wast problem domain. This is general purpose
library with huge variety of different applications with different
IMO week is way below reasonable time to review the library like this. I
may not hit the use case which is going to be showstopper for me well
after the review ends.
>>> I don't think sharing a review
>>> manager between several parallel reviews is a good idea.
>> I do not see why we need a strict rule here. If person is willing and/or
>> if, for example, there is one month left in one review one can start
>> another one taking 4 month... Ultimately review wizard has to approve
>> the review manager.
> I remember cases when a review manager was not able to conclude the
> review results long after the review ended because he didn't have enough
> time. It looks like shared/overlapping reviews will honor this
> situation. I would prefer review managers to be dedicated to a single
> subject at a time.
This maybe be the case with one review per manager as well. Any person
here can easily become busy for the period of month or so. And that's
exactly my point.
>> Look for my other post on the subject, but in general I believe library
>> author should be more active in soliciting the review managers. If we
>> can split review manager's job in two, the first part can be done by
>> someone submitted by the author oneself. Even if we keep the status quo,
>> the library author should engage other authoritative figures on a list
>> and ask for the help with review. And again, ultimately review wizard
>> has to approve the review manager.
> Well yes, active position on the author part may help but it's not
> guaranteed to succeed. Quoting yourself, people here are volunteers and
> you can't be sure to have a review manager once you need one. And
> according to your proposal, if I don't get lucky, my library is rejected.
Well, yes. If one can't find anyone interested enough in the library
within a year to manage a review for it.