Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-25 16:37:58

> I have a few meta comments about the Lockfree review and reviews in
> general:

Sorry for the late reply, I missed this mail initially.

> 1. I know a lot of people read this list via gmane.org.  A bug in
> gmane.org means that when a message is posted to more than one list - for
> example, a review announcement sent to this list and announce@ - then it
> appears only in one, and follow-ups are lost.  So gmane.org readers will
> have missed most of this review.  Of course a valid answer would be "they
> should fix it", but considering how few reviews have been written recently
> I think we should do everything possible to increase discussion.  I don't
> know if review managers get a "how to run your review" document, but
> assuming that they do, I suggest adding "please post separate
> announcements to each list, not one message to all".

I was not aware of this. Is that 'documented' somewhere in the review
manager related pages?

> 2. I think every candidate library should have an online copy of its
> documentation.  Again, I think this should be on the review manager's
> checklist.  Yes, you could say that people should be able to download and
> unzip and/or build their own copy of the docs, but again, we need more
> reviews and we need to remove as many obstacles (real or imagined) as
> possible.  (In the last review I asked "Where are the online docs?"
> and it turned out that they were available but I had missed them; oops.
> If I have once again missed them, oops again.)

The way reviews have been cast so far, this was not a strict requirement,
even if most of the authors provided such online docs. Anyways, Tim provided
his docs online, AFAIK (in addition to the docs in the downloadable
archive): http://tim.klingt.org/boost_lockfree/.

> 3. This has already been discussed to some extent, but why are we
> reviewing this before Boost.Atomic?  I think Boost.Atomic is an urgently-
> required library.  What can we all do to help it get submitted and
> accepted as soon as possible?

Tim already answered that one, I believe.

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com