Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] Review Manager
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-19 16:43:33
On 19 March 2015 at 14:05, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> christophe.j.henry wrote
> >>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?
> Of course, but why pass up the opportunity to get some advance feedback?
Is there a reasonable assurance that he'll get it, or is it just adding
latency to the process?
Of the twenty-two libraries listed, there are a whopping three reviews, two
of which are a review of your own library, and one of those is by you where
you recommend that we don't accept it into Boost. Not exactly good odds...
The incubator is an experiment. It may succeed, or it may fail. If
someone wishes to tie their review to it, that's fine. If they don't wish
to, that is fine too. We know that you want the incubator to succeed, but
it is unfair to expect anyone to hold up a review of their library because
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk