I have not seen any new reviews of libraries for Boost in a long time. Is this because: * There are very few libraries on the review queue. * There are no people willing to act as review managers for library reviews. * Boost already has so many libraries that an effort has been made to slow down reviews to a great extent. * There is little interest for new Boost libraries in the community of developers who follow Boost. * The transition to git and ryppl is taking precedence before any new libraries will be reviewed. * There are not enough reviewers when a library does have a review in order to decide whether or not a library should be accepted into Boost. Or perhaps some combination of these possibilities. As someone who still would like to see my variadic data library be reviewed for possible acceptance into Boost I am most curious to know the reasons why no new libraries appear to be getting reviewed anymore.
Edward Diener wrote:
I have not seen any new reviews of libraries for Boost in a long time. Is this because:
* There are very few libraries on the review queue. * There are no people willing to act as review managers for library reviews. * Boost already has so many libraries that an effort has been made to slow down reviews to a great extent. * There is little interest for new Boost libraries in the community of developers who follow Boost. * The transition to git and ryppl is taking precedence before any new libraries will be reviewed. * There are not enough reviewers when a library does have a review in order to decide whether or not a library should be accepted into Boost. Or perhaps some combination of these possibilities.
As someone who still would like to see my variadic data library be reviewed for possible acceptance into Boost I am most curious to know the reasons why no new libraries appear to be getting reviewed anymore.
I've been concerned about the review process for some time. There is all of the above. Also it many cases there haven't been enough reviewers. There are libraries which have been approved with only two or three reviews. I've previously stated my reasons why I think the review process is flawed so I won't repeat them here. My response is to create www.blincubator.com. You could post your library there and let people start reviewing right now. This would give you useful feedback immediately. If things go well, by the time boost actually get's around to reviewing your library, it there should already be a number of reviews already prepared. Please consider giving this a try. Robert Ramey
On 18 Sep 2013 at 20:29, Edward Diener wrote:
As someone who still would like to see my variadic data library be reviewed for possible acceptance into Boost I am most curious to know the reasons why no new libraries appear to be getting reviewed anymore.
Did you not see my post http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/09/206187.php? I offered to review manage someone's library in exchange for that person review managing AFIO. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
On 19-09-2013 17:57, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013 at 20:29, Edward Diener wrote:
As someone who still would like to see my variadic data library be reviewed for possible acceptance into Boost I am most curious to know the reasons why no new libraries appear to be getting reviewed anymore.
Did you not see my post http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/09/206187.php? I offered to review manage someone's library in exchange for that person review managing AFIO.
Maybe that's not the best discipline that two authors act as review manager for eachother libraries. just my two cent. -Thorsten
On 19 Sep 2013 at 18:49, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Did you not see my post http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/09/206187.php? I offered to review manage someone's library in exchange for that person review managing AFIO.
Maybe that's not the best discipline that two authors act as review manager for eachother libraries.
I agree. Far better would be at least three people, so there is no mutual interdependence. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
On 9/19/2013 11:57 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013 at 20:29, Edward Diener wrote:
As someone who still would like to see my variadic data library be reviewed for possible acceptance into Boost I am most curious to know the reasons why no new libraries appear to be getting reviewed anymore.
Did you not see my post http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/09/206187.php? I offered to review manage someone's library in exchange for that person review managing AFIO.
I did see your post but my thoughts are: 1) It is not best if A is the review manager for B's library and B is the review manager for A's library. There is too much temptation to approve a library that way. 2) Understanding ASIO has proven to me to be a difficult task, albeit I have not spent much time studying it. As I understand it AFIO is an extension of ASIO for files. 3) With that last said I would be glad to be a review manager for a library. But My OP was prompted because I have seen little movement recently in the way of even calls for review managers to speed up the process of having libraries reviewed. Perhaps I just missed such a general request.
On 20 Sep 2013 at 22:42, Edward Diener wrote:
Did you not see my post http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/09/206187.php? I offered to review manage someone's library in exchange for that person review managing AFIO.
I did see your post but my thoughts are:
1) It is not best if A is the review manager for B's library and B is the review manager for A's library. There is too much temptation to approve a library that way.
I agree. I can also see potential for heated arguments.
2) Understanding ASIO has proven to me to be a difficult task, albeit I have not spent much time studying it. As I understand it AFIO is an extension of ASIO for files.
Correct. ASIO is totally familiar if you're used to COM and WinRT reactor style callback programming, otherwise I agree it's a real mountain to climb. And AFIO, I am told, is harder than ASIO due to the dependency chaining facility which apparently wrecks people's heads.
3) With that last said I would be glad to be a review manager for a library. But My OP was prompted because I have seen little movement recently in the way of even calls for review managers to speed up the process of having libraries reviewed. Perhaps I just missed such a general request.
It's certainly a concern. Apart from directory monitoring, I expect AFIO to be finished this coming week - docs and all. I've just finished two days of performance tuning, and I have an AFIO implementation blowing past a multithreaded implementaton by 25% in warm cache, and a full 100% in cold cache. It's basically only polish left to go - t's crossed, i's dotted etc. Bugs notwithstanding of course, and there are many :( Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
participants (5)
-
Edward Diener -
Gordon Woodhull -
Niall Douglas -
Robert Ramey -
Thorsten Ottosen