Re: [boost] Review quality [ was stack trace review]

Subject: Re: [boost] Review quality [ was stack trace review]
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-02 15:08:58

On 2017-01-03 06:24, Robert Ramey wrote:
> On 1/2/17 7:41 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> ...
>> It would lead to better (and less acrimonious) reviews because we are 
>> not expecting perfection from day one.
> 
> FWIW - I don't think the reviews are all that acrimonious.

I have to site with Paul here as from what I've seen people do tend to 
expect everything on a plate from the set-go.

>> Too few people are reviewing 'real-life' usage.
>> We need more users and that won't happen
>> until we have a two-stage acceptance process.
> 
> Well we sort of have a two-stage process now.
> 
> Stage I = inclubator
> Stage II reviewed

The problem with the incubator IMO is that it does not provide any 
guarantee whatsoever that the library will be accepted/around/maintained 
in the future. The deployment requirements might well be different for 
other people but my situation is that we simply cannot include an 
external library/dependency without such a guarantee. The burden/impact 
of retiring/replacing a no-longer-supported library is likely to be 
unacceptably high.