On 26/10/10 16:00, Jim Bell wrote:
So what if we try to recruit a couple helpers for each library?
Good idea, but tricky to achieve.
I see two avenues where we can use some volunteer help to improve boost's quality.
1. Dandelion pickers: look at failed/yellow regression tests and try to fix them. Volunteers could pick a platform they have access to, and try to work across all libraries. You might be surprised at how easy many are to fix. 2. Ticket triage: pick a library and go through all open tickets. Change severity, resolve, request more information, try to map to an existing regression test, interact with the submitter in the comments. (I think Trac needs a "requesting more information" state.) Even a brief 'triage' on each would be helpful, and help users feel they're being heard. (Trac needs to track this, too.) Write new regressions from legitimate issues.
Perhaps, it would be feasible and sensible if experienced Boost hackers could provide some sort of review in form of rating, an estimated difficulty (for example, regarding required C++ skills and Boost internals knowledge) for outstanding issues. This could help those less experienced decide which issues to take.
Recruiting pitch: it's a great way to improve your skills--troubleshooting, C++, platform-specific expertise, communication.
Not so glamorous, but important and great experience.
IMO, getting involved in Boost is a great experience, definitely.
Maybe put the word out on Slashdot.
Twitter :-) Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org