Subject: [boost] What's wrong with review process (Was: Boost Incubator Status Report)
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-11 08:36:54
On 11/06/2014 07:43 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Vladimir Prus-3 wrote
>> Rather, the question is what we're trying to really achieve. One can come
>> with all sorts of things, like:
>> - Gather interest on potential new libraries
>> - Easily comment on code
>> - Easily comment on documentation
>> - Run tests on potential submissions
>> and these can have multiple technical solution, like using social
>> gerrit-style code annotation, medium-style documentation comments, and
>> changes to the test framework, but it does not appear there's a decision
>> what we want to achieve.
> The above list doesn't describe what MY goals for the incubator are. I'm not
> saying they're necessary unworthy - just that i haven't had them in mind.
It's hard to say which goals are best; in fact I'm not sure we have universal
agreement on what are the problems, and what are the reasons for them.
I've just created a quick poll on Google+ about our review process,
it would be great if anybody who cares express their opinion:
-- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk