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: Ron Garcia (rxg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-10 13:44:07

Thank you for volunteering to manage the review of QVM.  I have added you to the review schedule.

Best,
Ron

On 2015-04-02, at 2:47 PM, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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? :)
> 
> Actually there is interest. From quite long time we're considering using QVM in/with Geometry.
> 
>>> 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. :)
>> 
> 
> I promissed you to be a manager some time ago, so at least I owe you that. :)
> Therefore I'd like to volunteer.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost