Re: [boost] [metaparse] Review Manager

Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] Review Manager
From: christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden]
Date: 2015-03-19 02:50:42

Hi,

>I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby
>libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews.  We could
>discuss what "small" is.  I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is
>not "small".   FWIW my pick would be 5.
>
>If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the
>review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources.

Thanks for worrying for my time ;-)
I agree that my time is a scarce resource. So if I'm willing to risk it, and 
risk reviewer time too, it's because I think the library has merit and 
deserves a closer look.
I also waited for requesting a review until Abel writes some good 
documentation and tutorial, which he did by now. Community, please have a 
look at it, I hope you will like what you see.
The "Getting Started" part is really well done, and with the Online Demo, 
Abel went to great lengths to make us easy to try the library out.
I have seldom seen a library come to review with such a good documentation.

>If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
>forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
>significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.

I thought this was the point of having to find a review manager and organize 
a review. There is always a risk that the library fails to pass the review. 
Otherwise, why have one?

>well, right now incubator interest is the only way we have of gaging
>if there's enough interest in a library to justify reviewing it.  The
>review process has been a problem for years.  I'm trying to make
>it better - albeit with limited success.

>Note that my target audience for the incubator is not so much the
>boost developer community but the C++ community at large.  I'm
>hoping that "the rest of us" will find code there that solves problems
>lot's of people have.  And that this code will include commentary
>from other users, good documentation (ideally annoyed by other
>users), access to test results, reviews and commentary, and
>access to repo history.  I also want to make it easier for the wider
>community to contribute.  It's great to have 4 meta programming
>libraries around - but isn't there room for a really well crafted
>class for "money".

I can only praise your efforts and it is one more tool to get quality 
libraries in Boost. But the "standard" one works sometimes too. We can have 
both.
The bar is usually so high to find a review manager, if you find one, 
chances are that there is interest. Sure, maybe only from a few "geeks", but 
these geeks are usually the ones who use these tools to make new libraries.

>I realize that that I'm on a personal quest here. I much appreciate
>the willingness of the boost community to indulge me here.

I personally do it happily and appreciate your commitment to the community.

Regards,
Christophe