Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Heaps
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-01 12:13:03
Andrew Sutton-3 wrote:
> These are good observations.
>> Two additional points:
>> 1. Most participating via Code Collaborator should be "observers," not
>> "reviewers." Â The latter are expected to "accept" each comment and
>> defect. Â My suggestion is that the review manager be the sole "reviewer."
> I agree with this in principle, but I'm curious to hear if there are
> any dissenting opinions :)
I find interesting the reviewer can accept the response the author give to
its own comments or defects.
Once the review is finished, the review manager can change the role of all
the other reviewers to observers.
This gives the review manager an idea of how many issues have not been
>> 2. Code Collaborator should not be used for design level discussion or
>> for the final review message that answers the traditional questions,
>> including whether to accept the library.
> I find the communication features of Code Collaborator lacking for
> precisely this reason and would also prefer to discuss and debate
> high-level design issues on the mailing list.
I have not reached to do copy-paste from the source to the comments. Is
there a way? If not this is quite limiting.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/review-Heaps-tp3563201p3566239.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk