Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Incubator Status Report
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-07 17:35:02
On 11/7/2014 11:23 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Vladimir Prus-3 wrote
>> it's just we see that formal reviews are not as well-attended as before,
>> and one way to improve
>> might be to make participation easier.
> I've been concerned about the low attendance in the formal review process
> for years. (Is Boost Broken? BoostCon 2010?). The motivation behind the
> design of the incubator is to "make participation easier" by decoupling the
> preparation of the review from a specific 1-2 week time frame. It was also
> specifically designed to not alter the actual Boot Review process. So far,
> it has only garnered one "pre-review" so one could say it's a failure. But
> I'm not done yet. I'm very stubborn - I made 27 versions of the
> serialization library (with one formal review which rejected it. I'm not
> done yet here either. There wiil be incremental changes in the Boost
> Library Incubator implementation to encourage more reviews.
Other than lengthening the formal review process to encourage more
people to participate I do not see any means to get people more
interested in reviewing Boost libraries. As far as the incubator is
concerned I feel it is a good idea but nobody is using it to comment on
libraries. As far as Boost reviews it appears that most programmers are
afraid to even make comments about a potential library in which they may
be interested. Maybe the specter of C++ experts scares them away. Maybe
they feel that they might look foolish if they make a comment which is
based on just a partial understanding of the library involved. I do not
think the problem is with the programmers defending their library up for
review since nearly all of them are openly willing to explain any area
of their library which a reviewer may not understand or approve.
Finally there is a decided problem with the lack of people willing to be
review managers for a library. I think it would be a good idea to
establish a pool of people, with their e-mail addresses, willing to be
review managers and then when a library is on the review queue one of
the review managers would send out e-mail to all people in the pool
asking each one if he would be willing to be the review manager for a
particular library. If no one at a given time in the pool will agree,
then after some pre-established time period the process repeats itself.
Of course if almost no one is willing to be part of the pool, then we
won't have any formal reviews.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk