On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Niall Douglas
On 1 Apr 2015 at 23:37, John Phillips wrote: I still think that requiring anyone submitting a library for review must first act as review manager for another library would be a very wise strategy.
IMO acting as a review manager shouldn't be something one does because he must.
Both myself and Antony have served as review manager for other libraries since submitting our libraries. The present situation is frustrating, though I'd imagine for Emil it is even worse seeing as he's been waiting a year longer, and yet has been doing all the work a library maintainer does except without the recognition or visibility of being included into Boost official.
Doesn't this simply mean that there isn't enough interest in the library within the Boost community? :)
Whilst peer review is important, it is impractical for very niche libraries
Should niche libraries be part of Boost? In the case of QVM I like to think that a generic quaternion/vector/matrix library is not *that* niche but the evidence seems to show that it is. Regardless I don't feel that the Boost community owes me a review. :) -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode