Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-28 06:39:51
Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> Am 27.12.2010 21:05, schrieb Vladimir Prus:
>> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>> 4. Change the review process instead from a
>>> submission->review->inclusion process that's rigidly scheduled to one
>>> that is less rigid and is more fluid.
>> I think that the current review process is actually good.
> How much libs are in the review queue and how long are they waiting for
> a review (my libs are waiting for more than one year)?
> The review process is very slow and could be much faster (at least for me).
- Yes it could. I get the impression that the review process is not actively
driven -- in particular, I'm sure that if past review managers were contacted
and asked if they would be willing to review something again, we'd have quite
some slots in the schedule filled in.
- Given that somebody still should decide that include your library in
the official release, you still depend on active 'somebody'.
- Even now, nothing prevents you from publishing your library for anybody
Am I missing something?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk