Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-07 03:36:48
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 11/07/2014 04:06 AM, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]> spake the secret code
>> <m3fe5s$vun$1_at_[hidden]> thusly:
>>> Say, if I can made per-line comments on proposed library code, like
>>> gerrit does, it would be rather useful.
>> You can do this on github already.
>> You can make comments on any line of any commit.
> Presumably that's why I've said, earlier:
> In fact, maybe the best way to run a formal review (or informal review, whatever) is to post a link to github
> repository, where comments on the code can be made already, and issues created?
Comments and issues are important ways of providing feedback which haven't directly been part of Boost reviews before, but I don't think they replace the broader discussions which happen in traditional reviews.
I think these channels may help authors refine their work more than they help review managers, but I could also see them joining the criteria managers may use (at their discretion) to decide whether to accept a library.
>> So, if you want to give line-by-line code review feedback of a library
>> and it's hosted on github, have at it.
> Not sure whether you agree to the quoted hypothesis or not.
> Vladimir Prus
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk