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

Subject: Re: [boost] Review quality [ was stack trace review]
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-02 15:56:05

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 1/2/17 12:08 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No one - not even boost - can make such a guarentee.
>

+1

Can you afford to take the risk of a Boost library (or any other library)
to not be maintained and bug-free in the future? Nobody but the user can
answer this question, because even if the risk could be evaluated
objectively, the risk-tolerance is user-specific.

Most definitely this is not a matter the review process should be concerned
with.

Emil