Niall Douglas wrote
Hey - I thought I was giving this talk !
You are. And you'll see what I'll say as soon as you show me what you'll say.
I've committed to previewing my presentation to any parties which are interested enough in the topic to delve deeper into the subject. (of course this includes you!). Also the conference also has provision for lightening talks which anyone can present on short notice. In addition there are other presentations which touch on related themes as well as a "Future of Boost" session. So I'm confident that we'll all get to have our say.
As a proof of concept I think yes. It is just web form => database => HTML page, very 1990s web. Though as I'm sure you'll agree it's far harder than it should be with Wordpress.
Quite bluntly, I don't think Wordpress is up to it Robert. I actually don't think Wordpress is up to the current incubator either, it's the wrong CMS for the task at hand.
I spent some significant time looking at an experimenting with alternatives. When one makes "toy" applications they all look good. Delving deeper - they all had problems covering the breadth that of applicability that the incubator requires. I definitely have my share of complaints about wordpress. But I don't think any other alternative would have been better. The incubator contains about 1000 lines of php code and 28 active wordpress plug-ins. It's a pain to figure the stuff out, but once one does it works reliably. So I don't regret the choice.
We are consistently moving closer to a common position no doubt. The main technical differences are on scalability. I essentially want as little human involvement as possible so things really can scale out. I think you think that loses the whole point of Boost - the human review.
correct.
One thing I would like to see right now would be for review wizard (maybe after running it by the steering committee or other influential boosters) to impose the requirement that any library to be reviewed be on the incubator. This would be the first official connection between Boost itself and the incubator. I think the time is right for this now.
I think reviews on the incubator are unworkable. Wordpress is the wrong tool for discussing code.
Github's per line and per commit discussion system is considerably better. ... snip .. but now you're talking 500 hours at least.
The incubator's review setup is meant to implement the current practices of Boost Reviews. I believe it does that in an effective way. You're advocating a whole different way of reviewing libraries. That's fine - but it has nothing to do with the incubator. Should Boost change it's way of reviewing/certifying libraries the the question of implementing the new system would be wide open. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/peer-review-queue-tardiness-Cleaning-out-... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.