Review Request: boost.fiber
I'd like to ask for a formal review of boost.fiber. description: boost.fiber provides a framework for micro-/userland-threads (fibers) scheduled cooperativly. The API contains classes and functions to manage and synchronize fibers similiar to boost.thread. source code: https://github.com/olk/boost-fiber documentation: http://ok73.funpic.de/boost/libs/fiber/doc/html/index.html best regards, Oliver
2013/12/9 Wouter van Ooijen
Oliver Kowalke schreef op 09-Dec-13 7:11 PM:
I'd like to ask for a formal review of boost.fiber.
Very interesting. We use something very similar in our classes.
I have no experience in the Boost review process, how can I contribute?
you could report bugs/suggestions for the code or interface etc. - maybe in the review or before. you can read more detailed infos at http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html
On 9 Dec 2013 at 22:55, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
Oliver Kowalke schreef op 09-Dec-13 7:11 PM:
I'd like to ask for a formal review of boost.fiber.
Very interesting. We use something very similar in our classes.
I have no experience in the Boost review process, how can I contribute?
I assume the OP was asking for preliminary review, not to begin peer review (if he wanted to begin peer review, he would email the review wizards and ask for his library to enter the peer review queue, and wait the year or so until a suitable review manager turns up). As it's just a preliminary review, go ahead and review his design and source code and provide feedback by replying here. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Le 10/12/13 22:43, Niall Douglas a écrit :
On 9 Dec 2013 at 22:55, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
Oliver Kowalke schreef op 09-Dec-13 7:11 PM:
I'd like to ask for a formal review of boost.fiber. Very interesting. We use something very similar in our classes.
I have no experience in the Boost review process, how can I contribute? I assume the OP was asking for preliminary review, not to begin peer review (if he wanted to begin peer review, he would email the review wizards and ask for his library to enter the peer review queue, and wait the year or so until a suitable review manager turns up). The OP requested a *formal* review not a preliminary one.
You are right, the OP could email the review wizards privately, but I have already seen some formal review request on this ML. Vicente
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
The OP requested a *formal* review not a preliminary one.
You are right, the OP could email the review wizards privately, but I have already seen some formal review request on this ML.
It was also my assumption that posting a formal review request on the mailing list was one way to do it. Could some formal review requests have been "lost" because of such assumption?
On 2013-12-10, at 8:47 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
The OP requested a *formal* review not a preliminary one.
You are right, the OP could email the review wizards privately, but I have already seen some formal review request on this ML.
It was also my assumption that posting a formal review request on the mailing list was one way to do it.
That's right, both are fine. In all likelihood a direct email will be seen faster though :). Ron
Could some formal review requests have been "lost" because of such assumption?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (6)
-
Klaim - Joël Lamotte -
Niall Douglas -
Oliver Kowalke -
Ron Garcia -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba -
Wouter van Ooijen