Subject: Re: [boost] Boost summer of formal reviews
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-11 16:54:23
On 03/12/2014 04:45 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2014 at 12:29, Borislav Stanimirov wrote:
>> I am not saying that most (or any) of the libraries stuck in review
>> limbo, should pass the process, but some of them at least deserve a look
>> (again, like AFIO).
> What slightly irritates me about the present review queue is that
> there is a wide disparity between the quality of the libraries in
> there, with some clearly not ready for peer review.
> What I'd really, really like is if the review schedule also listed
> answers to at least the following questions so queue submitters have
> a better idea of what is demanded:
Apologies for truncating your long list of "demands" :-) ... done so
only to keep the conversation short and flowing.
That is a seriously big list... and IMO unreasonable given the author
has no guarantees whatsoever that all that effort will not be wasted...
if the respective library is rejected for completely different reasons
-- high-level design, applicability, you name it. More practical (less
off-putting) IMO might be 2-level review when an idea/design, API,
first-cut implementation and readable/sensible documentation are
presented for evaluation. If that's rejected outright, then it saves the
author a lot of effort that he might direct onto improving his original
design/offering. If the initial concept is accepted, then the author
would have a real incentive to keep working and improving his original
submission behind more/less stable and already-approved API. I think in
reality that happens all the time in Boost (or any public library for
that matter). Spirit's considerable evolution/transformation might be an
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk