Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 12:29:54

----- Original Message -----
From: "KTC" <ktc_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process

> 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.

Interest from the end users is not enoght. And 6 month is quite a lot of time to look for available time.

> 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?

I would say a lack of interest of someone that could be a review manager :)
IMO, one of the author's role is to look for a review manager between the people having an interest for the library.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at