Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 21:45:37

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 :/
>
> tim
>

   There is the potential for a couple of misunderstandings here that I 
want to make sure don't happen.

   First - The review queue is not a FIFO. It is a Priority Queue, where 
priority is established by having a review manager lined up and a time 
where you want the review to happen. You will never be told - "I'm 
sorry, but you have to wait for library X to be scheduled before you can 
schedule." In specific for Lockfree, this means that if there is a 
Manager for the review, then please contact Ron and I with some 
suggested start times, and you can be reviewing very soon.

   Second - We have no established quota for how many reviews should 
happen in a year. We try to avoid having multiple reviews happening at 
the same time because the experience has been that when it happens 
neither library gets much attention. The reason we wind up with ~ 6 
reviews a year for the last few years is because that is how many 
reviews have a combination of library and manager ready to go in the 
year. With some care in scheduling, and allowing for every review to 
have a chance to extend for a third week if needed, we could run 17 in a 
year with no overlap, and have BoostCon week off from reviews. I don't 
know how long the community would sustain this pace before people got 
sick of writing reviews, but the review schedule is not the restriction 
here.

                        John