Re: [boost] [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements

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 16:35:27

Niall Douglas wrote
> On 2 Apr 2015 at 11:56, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'll tell you my ideal outcome, and it's what I'll pitch after your 
> talk.

I was thinking we'd keep building the suspense until the conference
so I won't go in to detail here - but just a couple of points.

> As you correctly point out, that is a completely different Boost to 
> the current one. But then it *is* a "Boost 2.0".

fair enough. 

> Before you say this is pretty much what the Incubator does,

LOL - wasn't going to say that.

> I'll ask this: does the present implementation of the Incubator scale to
> 1,000 
> C++ libraries? 
> ... snip ..

I don't think the capacity of the incubator is going to be insufficient for
any vision Boost can realistically expect to agree on and implement 
in my lifetime. (but then I'm 67).  I just don't think it will every
come up and issue.

My experience in implementing the incubator has led me to a 
few conclusions:

a) wordpress is slow - at least compared to what we expect here at Boost.
This is a feature of the way wordpress is implemented and won't
change as long as wordpress is being used.

b) a) doesn't matter.  It's a facade over a git server (usually github)
and some other servers.  right now we have 25 libraries and
maybe 50 visits a day.  I see it a long time before that increases
by a factor of 100 - and even then I'm pretty sure it could
easiliy handle the load. And as I said - I'll be dead by the time that
happens.

c) wordpress has a number of interesting features for this app.
(the incubator - not the "Naill Biter").

1) wordpress is pretty good with it's "market place" of add-ons.
Like most software - most of these are crappy and incomplete.
So I have to test on the average about 5 to keep 1.  BTW this
is pretty much my experience with C++ libraries as well.  So
it's not really a wordpress thing.  In any case it's quite inspiring
as far as seeing where I'd like to see Boost go.  In fact, if I have
nothing else else to do I might do a lightening talk "What boost
can learn from wordpress".  I'm lobbying to have the iightning
takes moved to the Aspen Meadows Bar - but so far without
success.

2) wordpress claims that 25% of all websites on the planet
run on wordpress.  It might be true.

3) I went to a local word camp - organized by ? - I don't know.
Very fun - hippies, braless females, the works. Party like it's 1969 !!!!  
Way too much fun for C++ programmers.

2) PHP surprised me by being much better than I thought it
was going to be.  A great thing that it has is that it's well
documented - as good as CPP Reference - and it lets users
annotate the documentation with all the little gotchas they
discover - and indispensable feature. We could learn from this.

4) If someone had nothing else to do, he could make one
kickass CMS by just re-implementing wordpress in C++ with
an API for add-ons as shared libraries.  Like COM all over again.
In todays market - easily worth several billion dollars.  Just
the savings heat energy would like eliminate the global warming
problem.

5) The number one problem with the incubator is .....
Finding libraries which meet the minimal standards of the
incubator - which are significantly lower than Boost standards.
The incubator standards require some tests, some documentation, 
and some working code - that's about it.  If you troll the web for
C++ code - not 1 "library" in 1000 meets even these minimal standards.
(don't get me started on concepts). 

All of the above certainly influences my views about what
we want and can expect to accomplish.

This may well be the most run C++Now since we had keynoters
Linus Torvalds and David Abrahams give a demonstration of
pair programming.

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/peer-review-queue-tardiness-Cleaning-out-the-Boost-review-queue-tp4673913p4674060.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.