Re: [boost] [pre-review] Pimpl submission in the review queue

Subject: Re: [boost] [pre-review] Pimpl submission in the review queue
From: Mostafa (mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-24 15:58:59

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:53:55 -0700, Michael Caisse  
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 05/24/2011 10:59 AM, Mostafa wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 04:16:00 -0700, Stewart, Robert  
>> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mostafa wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011 14:42:06 -0700, Vladimir Batov
>>>> <vb.mail.247_at_[hidden]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I have a Pimpl generalization submission getting close to the
>>>> > top in the review queue. Rob Stewart suggested I'd post it to
>>>> > the new Boost Code Collaborator site for a pre-review. That's
>>>> > what I did with the following link to the pre-review
>>>> > (Review #5):
>>>> >
>>>> > <http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=5>
>>>> >
>>>> > Your participation in that pre-review is most welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to have anonymous read-only access to it?
>>>
>>> If you want to use the Code Collaborator site to examine the library,  
>>> you must create an account.  The good news is that there are other  
>>> libraries there that you can review, too.  If you wish to avoid  
>>> creating an account, then you can follow the link on the review  
>>> schedule to the code in the sandbox.
>>
>> Some may just want to follow a review without necessary participating  
>> in one.  Requiring a user account discourages such activity, and in my  
>> opinion, creates an artificial barrier to further engagement between  
>> newcomers, or even existing Boost watchers, and Boost, even if it is a  
>> one-sided engagement.
>>
>> My thoughts,
>>
>> Mostafa
>>
>
> I'm going to strongly disagree here. Of late, there have been multiple  
> reviews that have only been conducted on the dev list. While I disagree  
> with the decision, I can both appreciate and understand it. The Review  
> Manager role is hard enough while monitoring one list during an  
> energetic review. However, this choice by some Review Managers has  
> resulted in disenfranchised user-only-list members of the community.  
> Just look at the responses on the user list when these announcement were  
> made.
>
> The offered solution: subscribe to the dev list for the duration of the  
> review. The push-back to the suggestion: the dev list is a high-volume  
> list that people don't want to wade through to get review updates from.
>
> A tool such as Code Collaborator is the perfect solution. If you don't  
> want the traffic of the review, don't subscribe. If you want to follow  
> the review, then subscribe and only get updates on the review you want  
> to follow.
>
> There is no barrier to creating a user account. Credit card numbers are  
> not solicited, spam is not sent. The review process is something that  
> can benefit from tools. Please don't create FUD.
>
>
> michael

Hello Michael,

I think you've misread this discussion, or I haven't been very clear in  
expressing myself.  My original, and only suggestion, was to have  
read-only access to Code Collaborator without the need to create an  
account, without making a value judgement on whether Code Collaborator was  
good or bad, or whether the review process should be changed or not.

It may truly be that what I point out leads to FUD, but I do think it is a  
legitimate concern.  Please see my response to Robert Stewart for more  
clarification: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/219704

Mostafa