Subject: Re: [boost] Respecting a projects toolchain decisions (was Re: [context] new version - support for Win64)
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-29 16:30:06
At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:58:52 -0500,
Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Dave Abrahams
> > <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:56:19 +0800,
> > > Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually, I'd +2 if you said a review should be open until the
> > >> library gets into the main distribution. And even after that,
> > >> reviewing the quality of the library should be on-going and
> > >> shouldn't stop at the point of inclusion into Boost. ;)
> > >
> > > _That_ is a really cool idea.
> > I liked too. How many times I wanted to review a library, but didn't
> > find any time in the two or three weeks they were being reviewed.
> > Sometimes these libraries are in the review queue for much longer
> > than that, and a review could've been possible before or even after.
> There's nothing stopping you from submitting reviews for any of the
> pending libraries right now.
Yeah, but there's nothing encouraging it either. It would be cool to
have a system that made it more rewarding to write reviews of Boost
libraries, in such a way that reviews would continue after the review
period. Of course, that's mostly social engineering and someone would
have to figure out how to accomplish it :-)
Maybe if the reviews were more carefully archived and somehow viewable
separately from everything else, that'd be a first step. Just
thinking out loud, now.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk