Subject: Re: [boost] [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-10 20:30:55
On 1/10/2011 4:23 PM, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Monday 10 January 2011, Artyom wrote:
>> When and how it would go to review.
>> My current situation:
>> - Boost.Locale - I currently maintain two versions: CppCMS's one
>> and Boost one - because I need it and on the other side it is not in
>> boost. - It is stuck in the review queue for about half a year.
>> - I did big boostification effort and I pay for it.
>> So should I do same mistake with CppDB and wait for another year to get
>> it reviewed and maintain two versions?
> Just to put out an idea: it seems to me developers tend to be more
> interested in submitting libraries than doing reviews or being review
> managers. Maybe boost could balance the scales by requiring library
> submitters to either be a review manager or review a couple submissions
> from others before their library can be accepted.
I like your suggestion, and I believe Boost should do it. But I think
the requirement should be to review a single submission, or be the
review manager, within n months ( possibly 3 or 6 ) of submitting a
library to Boost to go through the review process.
But just as important, if Boost were willing to allow a longer time for
a review and have more than one review going on at a time, I think the
more leisurely pace of reviews would be better for all involved. I would
even suggest that Boost could possibly have another mailing list/GMane
NG just for reviews, so that people willing to focus on software to be
reviewed could easily find what is being reviewed at any one time and
contribute their own review more easily.
As it is now, reviews are mixed in with many other comments on the
mailing list/GMane NG and the time do do a review, as well as the
responsibility of the review manager to keep track of a review, always
seems rushed to me. I believe if it were otherwise more people would
have the time to look at a library which might interest them and
contribute to a review.
As for being a review manager I agree with others that it takes a very
good C++ programmer but if one is submitting a library to Boost that
person has to be very good at C++ already. Perhaps also the
responsibility of the review manager needs to be delineated. I am
guessing that is on the Boost web site somewhere.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk