Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-15 08:22:37
2017-03-14 13:01 GMT+01:00 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> Dear Boost,
> I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have
> exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed
> libraries awaiting a review.
> As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to
> new growth, I think that waiting around for years for someone to
> volunteer to manage a review is not healthy. If a library author has
> invested the very significant effort to develop a Boost-quality library,
> the least Boost can do is to try harder to provide timely reviews and
> that means persuading more people to volunteer to manage reviews.
Niall, it is good you are bringing this up. Only sending this message has
resulted in one library finding a review manager and the time slot.
But let me share a number of observations. Even if all the ideas for
motivating review managers work, and you have more people willing to manage
the review than the candidate libraries, there will still be one
bottleneck: only one library can be reviewed at a time. I personally find
it a good thing and would like to keep it this way.
Now, maybe this is just a coincidence, but we are just after the review of
safe_numerics, in two days the review of Stacktrace starts; the week after
it finishes, we have CallableTraits scheduled. There is also a good library
waiting for review: PolyCollection. It already has a review manager. It
looks like, at least for now, the schedule is full.
Actually, I have a question to JoaquÃn MÂª LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz and Ion GaztaÃ±aga.
What does it mean that the library in the queue has a review manager, but
does not have any time slot scheduled?
Your library, Outcome, I suppose it will shortly find a review manager, as
it looks useful and needed.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that a library like Tick is not in
the review queue. I would expect that it would be very welcome by many.
Another thought. When I look at the review queue, and also at the libraries
listed in BLIncubator, my personal feeling is that some libraries do not
fit into Boost. This is just my impression, but it rises a question.
There is no bar for libraries to be requested for a formal review, without
a review manager. Also, authors for some libraries maybe just want to get
some useful feedback, and not necessarily get their library into Boost.
Maybe we need some additional stage. BLIncubator was designed to fill this
gap. Maybe it can still be made to work. Maybe people who feel something
need to be done in the review queue, should go through the list of
libraries in BLIncubator, and give their authors feedback.
Maybe, we should be doing some informal pre-reviews. Take one library from
the queue. Contact the author; check if he/she is still alive, and discuss
with him why they want the library into boost and why we don't (or do) like
it, and what we would rather expect.
Maybe this alone would make the process go more smoothly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk