Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue

Subject: Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] Cleaning out the Boost review queue
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 14:08:51

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2015 at 23:37, John Phillips wrote:
> I still think that requiring anyone submitting a library for review
> must first act as review manager for another library would be a very
> wise strategy.

IMO acting as a review manager shouldn't be something one does because he
must.

> Both myself and Antony have served as review manager for other
> libraries since submitting our libraries. The present situation is
> frustrating, though I'd imagine for Emil it is even worse seeing as
> he's been waiting a year longer, and yet has been doing all the work
> a library maintainer does except without the recognition or
> visibility of being included into Boost official.
>

Doesn't this simply mean that there isn't enough interest in the library
within the Boost community? :)

> Whilst peer review is important, it is impractical for very niche libraries

Should niche libraries be part of Boost? In the case of QVM I like to think
that a generic quaternion/vector/matrix library is not *that* niche but the
evidence seems to show that it is. Regardless I don't feel that the Boost
community owes me a review. :)

-- 
Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode