Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-16 12:13:15

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joachim Faulhaber" <afojgo_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation

2010/5/15 <strasser_at_[hidden]>:
> Zitat von Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]>:
> - the lack of review managers isn't the bottleneck of the review process
> right now, most libraries on the review queue aren't ready for review
> anyway.

which is another strange inconsistency, because a library should be
only submitted for a formal review, if it fulfills all requirements
for a boost library, so the review could start immediately.

The question is who will check that the library meets all the review requirements. If I have understood, the review withards can not take this completly in account, as this check is not an automatic task. So we can have libraries on the review schedule that are not ready for review.

This can be also the case for libraries that have a review manager. As review manager of the Boost.Task library I can say that, when I accepted this role the library (Boost.Threadpool was named) was almost ready for review. The author changed the library with the intention, of course, of improving its own library and now the library is not ready for review.

Should I request to remove myself as review manager, as now the library is not ready for review?
Should we remove the libraries that are not ready for review from the review schedule?
Should we add a role that checks if the library fullfils the review requirements before it is added?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at