christophe.j.henry wrote
Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high enough? It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the incubator as a way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?
OK - let me state it another way. I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews. We could discuss what "small" is. I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is not "small". FWIW my pick would be 5. If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources. If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted. if the review period falls at an inconvenient time for some key reviewers and they can't make a review in that time frame we've also lost good opportunity to maximize the effectiveness of the review. Now look at the incubator NOT as a pre-requisite but rather as way to minimize the possibility of a library getting rejected due to not getting enough serious reviews. Or maximizing the number of quality reviews. So I would encourage the libraries advocates to post their reviews on the incubator in advance of the formal review date. That's all I want to do ... (for now). I'll leave open the question of whether it's an effective usage of scarce resources to do a formal review if there are no existing reviews in he incubator.
Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high enough?
YES - it needs to be HIGHER!!! AND C++ needs MORE libraries. I'm aware that these two goals seem to conflict - that is why we need to evolve our procedures. As a user of boost - it seems that many, many, many times I want to look at a library and find way too much effort is required to understand and use the library. A big, recurring problem is poor documentation. Library authors consider it an afterthought rather than an integral part of the library. Another big recurring problem is library interface design. This results in a number of libraries where the authors state that they can't specify concepts because .... well I don't know. Usually it comes down to the fact that the library interface isn't really designed - it seems to just sort of "happen". Declining to raise our standards is a one way ticket to irrelevance. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/metaparse-Review-Manager-tp4673218p467338... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.