On 03/12/2014 04:45 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 11 Mar 2014 at 12:29, Borislav Stanimirov wrote:
I am not saying that most (or any) of the libraries stuck in review limbo, should pass the process, but some of them at least deserve a look (again, like AFIO). What slightly irritates me about the present review queue is that there is a wide disparity between the quality of the libraries in there, with some clearly not ready for peer review.
What I'd really, really like is if the review schedule also listed answers to at least the following questions so queue submitters have a better idea of what is demanded: ... Apologies for truncating your long list of "demands" :-) ... done so only to keep the conversation short and flowing.
That is a seriously big list... and IMO unreasonable given the author has no guarantees whatsoever that all that effort will not be wasted... if the respective library is rejected for completely different reasons -- high-level design, applicability, you name it. More practical (less off-putting) IMO might be 2-level review when an idea/design, API, first-cut implementation and readable/sensible documentation are presented for evaluation. If that's rejected outright, then it saves the author a lot of effort that he might direct onto improving his original design/offering. If the initial concept is accepted, then the author would have a real incentive to keep working and improving his original submission behind more/less stable and already-approved API. I think in reality that happens all the time in Boost (or any public library for that matter). Spirit's considerable evolution/transformation might be an example.