Subject: Re: [boost] [review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-17 16:39:45
On 3/17/17 2:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> In the context of the discussion around review process improvements, I
> wanted to report another problem that I do not know how to solve. But maybe
> you do.
> Extending the review period by allowing the review on the BLIncubator looks
> like a good idea, but it also comes with a problem. The review applies to a
> particular commit (if we use GItHub terms), that is, to the state of the
> library on a particular branch at a particular point in time. If I see a
> review on BLIncubator (not that I see many of them), how do I know what
> commit it applies to and if it is even irrelevant.
> It might be partially relevant, but it puts me in an uncomfortable
> situation, that I will be investing my time in something that is likely to
> turn out to be useless.
> Also, I might consider submitting a review into BLIncubator, but what
> chances I have that it will be considered in the formal review, given that
> the formal review may work on a different commit: possibly on a quite
> different library by now?
This is really a criticism of the blincubator and it's the way that it
handles reviews. It's a valid issue that did not occur to me when I
made it. Since the blincubator hasn't gathered many reviews as I had
hoped it would, it hasn't been a big issue. The original idea/hope that
people would review submissions independently of the boost formal review
process/timeframe hasn't really taken off. Until that starts to happen
it's kind of a moot point.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk