Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 14:32:23

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Paul A. Bristow
<pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> -----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
> time.

Ditto. That's the heart of the issue, I think.

>
<snip>
> So I believe we most need a 'Boost Candidates' section with a much lower bar to entry, but with regular testing, and
> Trac.

Good idea. A two week formal review cannot replace the process of
discovery and creativity that comes from interacting with and adapting
to users over time. In order to mature in quality, new libraries don't
need more reviewers, they need more users. I think if Boost packaged
and distributed a separately branded, un-reviewed "Candidate" or
"Friends" collection that could help incubate new libraries.

Just brainstorming... Boost could do something similar to Debian's
"unstable" release. Or you could extend the idea of Boost Sandbox with
nightly builds and regressions, which would be enormously helpful to
new libraries. There could be a regular Boost Sandbox "release" in the
form of a .zip or tarball with a link on boost.com. The Sandbox could
grow as desired, while only the most popular/useful/mature libraries
come up for review and eventually graduate to become full-fledge Boost
libraries. This could give boost users and new authors better access
to each other without undermining the quality expectations of the
official, peer-reviewed Boost release.

Daniel Walker