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

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-16 07:29:49

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Emil Dotchevski
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
> 
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM, 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.
> 
> +1 in principle, there is no substitute for feedback from actual use
> of a library, but IMO this contradicts with your disagreement:

> requiring 'candidate code' to be used in real life by more people
> would make it harder for library developers, not easier.

It would mean more work for developers dealing with the feedback while in 'candidate' mode,

but it would make it *easier to achieve Boost Quality* and get over the bar.

Paul
---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]