Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 15:59:35
> The precedent for handling this is very well understood.
I don't if its that well understood as their seems to be some disagreement.
> If during the early part of review it becomes obvious Rejection votes
> are occurring due to presentation problems, the precedent is to
> withdraw the library from review, make the fixes, and start the
> review again with the fixed edition.
I think that is a huge waste of everyone's time for something as trivial as
moving folders around.
> I think peer reviews are very like academic paper peer reviews:
Except most of the time, its a volunteer effort, so I think its important to
be respectful of everyone's time.
> Not submitting a library in the correct directory structure is
> guaranteed to create problems for some reviewers, and is easily
> predicted before a review begins. Lack of CI testing is another. This
> is why I wrote up that Best Practices Handbook so for C++ 11/14
> libraries we can hopefully get more of the boxes preticked in the
> future before reviews of C++ 11/14 libraries begin.
Perhaps Boost could agree on some minimum list of requirements for a library
before it goes into review, but I doubt it will be same in your Best
Handbook. However, having some official list can help make this clearer in
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-announce-metaparse-Review-period-starts-May-25th-and-ends-June-7th-tp4675772p4676552.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