Subject: [boost] Review Process [was: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?]
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-11 08:02:51
At Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:56:47 +0100,
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 2011/1/10 Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess_at_[hidden]>:
> > -----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
> >> Â 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. Â 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.
> That's what I thought:
> Maybe it's time to refresh those ideas and to implement them instead
> of only discussing them.
+1. What do the review wizards think of this idea? If they're on
board, I don't think there's anything standing in the way.
-- 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