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 14:56:55
Niall Douglas wrote
>> Hey - I thought I was giving this talk !
> You are. And you'll see what I'll say as soon as you show me what
> you'll say.
I've committed to previewing my presentation to any parties which
are interested enough in the topic to delve deeper into the subject.
(of course this includes you!). Also the conference also has provision
for lightening talks which anyone can present on short notice. In addition
there are other presentations which touch on related themes as well
as a "Future of Boost" session. So I'm confident that we'll all get to have
> As a proof of concept I think yes. It is just web form => database =>
> HTML page, very 1990s web. Though as I'm sure you'll agree it's far
> harder than it should be with Wordpress.
> Quite bluntly, I don't think Wordpress is up to it Robert. I actually
> don't think Wordpress is up to the current incubator either, it's the
> wrong CMS for the task at hand.
I spent some significant time looking at an experimenting with
alternatives. When one makes "toy" applications they all look good.
Delving deeper - they all had problems covering the breadth that
of applicability that the incubator requires. I definitely have my
share of complaints about wordpress. But I don't think any other
alternative would have been better. The incubator contains about
1000 lines of php code and 28 active wordpress plug-ins. It's
a pain to figure the stuff out, but once one does it works reliably.
So I don't regret the choice.
> We are consistently moving closer to a common position no doubt. The
> main technical differences are on scalability. I essentially want as
> little human involvement as possible so things really can scale out.
> I think you think that loses the whole point of Boost - the human
>> One thing I would like to see right now would be for review wizard
>> (maybe after running it by the steering committee or other influential
>> boosters) to impose the requirement that any library to be reviewed be
>> on the incubator. This would be the first official connection between
>> itself and the incubator. I think the time is right for this now.
> I think reviews on the incubator are unworkable. Wordpress is the
> wrong tool for discussing code.
> Github's per line and per commit discussion system is considerably
> ... snip ..
> but now you're talking 500 hours at least.
The incubator's review setup is meant to implement the current practices
of Boost Reviews. I believe it does that in an effective way.
You're advocating a whole different way of reviewing libraries. That's
fine - but it has nothing to do with the incubator. Should Boost change
it's way of reviewing/certifying libraries the the question of implementing
the new system would be wide open.
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/peer-review-queue-tardiness-Cleaning-out-the-Boost-review-queue-tp4673913p4674052.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