Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 15:25:23

On 1/13/2011 12:26 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
>> - A library can only be added in the review schedule if the author has time in
>> near future to have a review, where near future is, say, 3 months.
>
> well, it would be great if the review would actually happen within a time frame
> of 3 months. unfortunately, it is a bit different in reality: the boost.lockfree
> library is on the review queue for more than a year. with 6 reviews per year
> (like in 2010) and 15 libraries earlier in the queue, i don't expect a review to
> happen before 2013. in a way, this is kind of nice since the dependency to
> boost.atomic (c++0x-atomics for c++-98) will hopefully be obsolete since
> compilers may already be reasonably c++0x-compliant.
>
> so a time frame of 3 months is probably more a time frame of 3 years :/

This is laughable if it were not so sad. Anyone with a finished library 
does not want to wait years for possible acceptance into Boost much less 
even more time before such an accepted library is added officially to a 
Boost distribution.

Once again I will say it although I do not know how to get Boost to 
change the way it presently does things with reviews: More than one 
review should go on at any one time and the period for a review should 
be much longer ( I favor one month ) to give possible reviewers more 
time to look at and review seriously a library. Imagine 3 or 4 reviews 
during each month period. That should releive a few bottlenecks.

Finally another GMane NG/mailing list for just reviews would give those 
interested in reviewing libraries a better focus on reviews and their 
responses. Call it the Boost Reviews mailing list and an appropriate 
gmane.comp.lib.boost.reviews NG.

I will be glad to write up a short formal proposal for this, whether it 
is listened to ot not, if someone tells me what the format might be and 
what I do with it after I am finished.