Re: [boost] [process] [sorting] [singularity] [compute] [others] Who needs review manager?

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
>with
>> > 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
>roles
>> 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:
>http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager
>
>In other words, there is a need to look through the sources, docs and
>build
>system, make sure that installation notes are sufficient, tell the
>author
>about missing/weak parts.

Absolutely correct. I suggest issuing a different word than "review"in the future, however. Perhaps "examine" or "study" would serve.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)