Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development

Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-22 07:36:51

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 03/20/2010 06:28 AM, John Phillips wrote:
>
> > If this is your intent, then I strongly disagree. An
> > important part of the role of the manager is to clarify and
> > distill those discussions and decide whether there is some
> > suggestion or requirement for the future development of the
> > library that is a product of the discussions. In a good
> > discussion of the library, by far the most valuable
> > information for composing a good review comes from the posts
> > that are not the formal review postings. It is the place
> > where people who disagree provide their reasons, where
> > examples are composed and discussed, where any consensus that
> > ever forms can be found. Reading those discussions is
> > essential to producing a good review report and a well
> > reasoned recommendation.

John, this is spot on but not documented in http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager.  I think it should be part of the Review Manager description.

> I understand that it is now the most part of the work of a
> review manager, and my intent was to reduce it. In my view, it
> would be easier for a review manager to have formal reviews
> containing the essential outcome of the discussion that
> happened between the reviewers and the author. The discussion,
> although containing a lot of reasoning, also contains a lot of
> technical details that may be hard to follow. I think that in
> many cases such details are less important than higher level
> issues, such as design and interface of the library.

The role of Review Manager doesn't seem onerous to me, and I volunteered to be one.  During a review, there is a tremendous upsurge of message traffic to which a Review Manager must pay attention, to be sure.  That demands a lot of the Review Manager, but not nearly so much as of the library author who must address the technical questions and concerns raised.

I think the problem for most reviews, for all involved, is they are too short.  Tiny, well focused libraries don't need more than a couple of weeks, but substantial libraries, like Boost.Log, need more so the discussion can have a more comfortable pace and so more people can spend sufficient time to do a review.  (Yes, they can start early, but they don't.)

Any reduction in the information a Review Manager uses to make a decision, particularly given the relatively small number of reviews submitted for most libraries, seems unwise.  That's why I asked John to include something like what he wrote above in the description of a Review Manager's responsibilities.  It is not uncommon for reviews to be rather short because so much content was discussed previously; the review winds up being a summary rather than sufficiently detailed to provide all that the Review Manager should consider.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.