Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: KTC (ktc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 12:13:42
On 13/01/2011 16:49, vicente.botet wrote:
>> - A review manager is only assigned if a review date is set at the same time,
>> where the date should be in near future -- say, 3 months again.
> I would say that the author and the review manager must set a date in the near future, let say 3 months and that this date must be in the near future, let say 3 months.
> IMO, a library that has no review manager before let me say 6 month should be removed from the list as there is no hard interest.
Is that necessarily the case? There's a difference between interest and
time available from those who consider themselves qualified to be review
managers, and interest from end user of a library.
Take an example of Xint. There were plenty of comments, suggestion and
review the various time it was "beta'd" on this list asking for
comments. And that's not counting the fact that a arbitrary precision
integer library has traditionally been a perennial topic of suggestion
for GSOC ideas. Yet, almost exactly 6 months to date, it still hasn't
had a review manager assigned. Is that really a lack of interest in such
a library, or more a lack of review managers?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk