Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 13:07:42
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Joachim Faulhaber
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 5:49 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
> So this is my suggestion:
> (1) Let's increase the standards: Let's make it more difficult for a library to be accepted into boost.
Strong disagreement - we need to make it *easier* to meet Boost Quality (and yet improve quality too).
The main improvement should come from more eyes viewing the code - isn't that the strength of Open Source?
To achieve this we need a way to get more 'candidate code' in real-life use by more people for a much longer period of
Then more people are in a position to make an informed review (we are shorter of *reviewers* as much as review
And it should make it easier to find people willing to be review managers - they need to feel comfortable that they know
a reasonable amount about the library.
Robert Ramey's suggestions would help achieve this.
(Sadly I was not able enjoy his bombastic delivery by attending BoostCon - distance, cost, time, Welcome from Homeland
Security ... ;-)
So I believe we most need a 'Boost Candidates' section with a much lower bar to entry, but with regular testing, and
PS We also need easier systems for uniform documentation - an important part of Quality is good documentation.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk