Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 00:15:57
John Phillips wrote
> The more recent creation of the incubator probably makes this
> practice outdated, and I expect newer libraries under development will
> receive more valuable attention in the incubator than in the queue. As a
> community member, I would support moving such libraries out of the queue
> and into the incubator, but preferably with developer agreement.
FWIW I searched the queue, made efforts to track down the authors
and sent them specific invitations to submit information on their
libraries to the incubator. The majority complied those libraries
are in the incubator right now.
> Testing policy is a more difficult question in my mind. It has not
> been the history of Boost to require any specific testing infrastructure
> (or most other sorts of infrastructure) for libraries. There have been
> times when this non-requirement has increased complexity, but there have
> also been times when experimentation has found better solutions. As a
> community member, I'm wary of forcing standardization, and would need
> some pretty persuasive arguments to support it.
Requirements for the incubator where designed to reflect those of
boost. Personally, I agree with the above that the current
requirements as far as testing is concerned are appropriate.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/peer-review-queue-tardiness-Cleaning-out-the-Boost-review-queue-tp4673913p4674031.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk