Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 01:12:00

On 4/1/2015 11:37 PM, John Phillips wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 11:12 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> I've been reviewing the Boost Formal Review queue as part of
>> preparing my C++ Now presentation and I observe the following things:
>> Observation 1. The following review submissions have not been updated
>> by their authors in over two years and therefore count as
>> unmaintained. Abandoned libraries before peer review are even more
>> undesirable than abandoned official Boost libraries, I therefore
>> suggest they be removed from the review queue until their authors
>> bring them up to date:
>> * Join (last update 2009)
>> * Block pointer (last update: well, it's still in the SVN sandbox)
>> * Singularity (last update 2011)
>> * Extended Complex Numbers (last update 2012)
>> * Array (last update 2012)
>> * Countertree (last update 2012, I see a github import in 2013 but no
>> new commits)
>> * Process (last update 2012).
>> ...
>> Niall
> As a friendly reminder, one thing that leads to libraries stagnating
> on the queue is that no one volunteers to be the Review Manager for
> them. So, if you have some experience with Boost, and you are interested
> in one or more of the libraries on the queue, please contact the author,
> and Ron and me, and volunteer.
> The authors pour substantial sweat and cogitation into these
> libraries, and will be overjoyed by your effort to help them move forward.

A useful idea might be a list of people willing to serve as a library
reviewer manager. You and Ron could keep the list and periodically you
could ask those on the list if they will have time within the next nnn
months to serve as review manager and, if so, for what library on the
review queue.

If you establish such a list, and are willing to ask people to be on
that list, I will gladly volunteer. What does bother me is that I agree
with you that the stagnation on the review queue comes largely from a
lack of review managers, not from poor quality libraries on the review
queue, but as soon as this is mentioned, many people agree this is
holding up the review process but none of those people themselves are
willing to be review managers. If there were such an official list it
might encourage people to sign up for it and at least when they are
contacted periodically they can then decide if they will have the time
to serve. Sort of like the jury system but totally voluntary.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at