Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 19:18:06
On 2 Jun 2015 at 12:59, Paul Fultz II wrote:
> > 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.
Thing is, it may or may not actually be trivial. In the past I've
thought something was as simple as a find and replace, and then it
turned into something quite tricky because the find and replace
exposed a deeper design problem. The OP has demonstrated that isn't a
problem in this case, hence I withdrew my objection.
> > 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.
Academic journal peer reviews are usually a volunteer effort too.
> > 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 Practices Handbook.
Agreed. My aim wasn't to write up the requirements, but to write up
examples of what I thought was best practice with the later aim of
scoring them via automated script. Very different goals.
> However, having some official list can help make this clearer in the
The existing requirements documentation is long in the tooth. Someone
ought to write up an official document and run it through multiple
rounds of peer review until it's canonical.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk