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 15:42:44

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 2 Apr 2015 at 11:08, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> > Should niche libraries be part of Boost?
>
> That's part of the wider debate, definitely. Is quality what we want
> for the Boost brand, or is popularity?
>
> I'm in the former camp, mainly because as the standard library grows
> it is necessarily the case that the low hanging fruit is picked and
> subsequent libraries must be more niche, and less popular. Therefore,
> to grow and evolve Boost I believe should aim for quality, not
> popularity.
>

I am too, which is why I haven't retracted QVM from the review queue.

>  > 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. :)
>
> I don't think the community does no.
>
> I do think that someone seeking a review manage needs to first give a
> review manage in return. Otherwise it's bad karma.
>

I'm guilty as charged. :)

My concern is that while encouraging experts to act as review managers is a
good thing, encouraging developers of arbitrary experience (there is no
screening process for submitting a library for Boost review) to act as
review managers probably isn't.

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