Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)

Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-28 06:59:03

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:40 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re:
[context]
> new version - support for Win64)
> 
> 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
> >>> submission->review->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
>   to try.
> 
> Am I missing something?

I feel that there are big barriers to getting a 'user base' for libraries
(for me, an very important part of the review process - for the users will
smoke out defects in both design and implementation and will contribute to
the formal review process).

1  Not yet reviewed libraries are not in quite the right format (folders
etc) so that they can easily be added to one's main Boost tree.
(John Maddock has comments on how easy it is to use SVN for this, but I
think many people need help/documentation on doing this).

<aside>  the difference between CVS and SVN was mainly the decent user
interface? </aside>

2  As I've said before, I believe we need a process change to package 'ready
for review' libraries differently.  Perhaps we might require a few sponsors
(probably users) to give a library this status?  And set up a new SVN tree
'Boost-Review' like sandbox, but better ordered?

3  Not yet reviewed libraries are not in a (separate) Sourceforge download.
This makes them seem not 'kosher'.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]