Re: [boost] Boost summer of formal reviews

On 11-Mar-14 14:18, Rob Stewart wrote:

On March 11, 2014 6:29:15 AM EDT, Borislav Stanimirov wrote:

Still, if you've got concrete ideas for improving the backlog, speak up.

Well I am not familiar with all ideas that have been given and the following could have been mentioned before (and even shown to be bad), but what about openly accepting donations for Boost and using them to actually pay the review managers for their time. Apart from that, what is the actual risk of adding a bad library to the collection? The following is an idea for a fundamental change in the review process: * Have a short informal review process based on short reviews from the community. More than a spam filter than an actual review process, actually. The "reviews" could be something like "Well. It looks OK to me". * Then have an _automated_ test for eligibility. Does the library compile as part of Boost in the most popular compilers and configurations? Static and dynamic analyzers can provide code coverage info by the library's tests (100% would be a requirement). They will check whether it crashes, has memory leaks, and more. * After a library passes the automated tests, it just becomes a part of boost. _BUT!_ It does so in the namespace boost::bleeding_edge. Have a disclaimer that bleeding_edge libraries haven't passed a formal review yet. Still, even with such a disclaimer, they would be exposed to the public, and more people would be encouraged to try them. * To get out of the bleeding_edge namespace, a library needs to either receive a formal review (in the format formal reviews are made now), or demonstrate its use in several real-life working projects (independent from the author). How about that? -- Borislav