Subject: Re: [boost] [process] [sorting] [singularity] [compute] [others] Who needs review manager?
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-14 09:44:35
On September 14, 2014 6:24:16 AM EDT, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>2014-09-14 0:25 GMT+04:00 Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
>> Antony Polukhin wrote
>> > I'll take a closer look to the library and write a personal note
>> > comments/notes as soon as I get some free time.
>> > But first of all, I'll take care of the Compute review :-)
>> I'm wondering if perhaps you've got confused about the differing
>> of review manager vs reviewer. IRC a review manager doesn't review
>> libraries himself, he reviews the reviews of others, weighs them and
>> arrives at a acceptance/rejection. Think the US court system
>> judge - review manager
>> jury - reviewers.
There's a problem with the analogy because we do expect the Review Manager to ensure the case is ready for court and the defense is fully prepared, so to speak.
>I'm not going to write a full review of the library, I'm just trying to
>satisfy the first bullet for Review manager:
>In other words, there is a need to look through the sources, docs and
>system, make sure that installation notes are sufficient, tell the
>about missing/weak parts.
Absolutely correct. I suggest issuing a different word than "review"in the future, however. Perhaps "examine" or "study" would serve.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk