On 7/30/2012 2:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:
It's been more than a year since a completed the block_ptr and it seems as if more recent library are being reviewed first. This would suggest the FIFO of the schedule is not followed.
We often refer to the review "queue", but that is using the vernacular rather than the computer science meaning of that word. It is not a FIFO. The order in which reviews are conducted is dependent upon many factors, but a library will not be scheduled for review without a review manager.
I just looked at http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html and http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html and don't see any mention of who finds the review manager, so it's understandable that you misunderstood. It is your responsibility to secure a review manager. One is not assigned. Once you've found someone, you post a message to the Review Wizards asking them to accept your review manager. If accepted, your review manager and you must then agree on some dates for your review -- you'll want to avoid conflicts with currently scheduled reviews -- and submit them to the Review Wizards who will then schedule your review.
Your explanation is appreciated. I thought I read somewhere it was a first come first served basis so I apologize for the misunderstanding. If there is any potential review manager reading this then I can say that it features: - Constant complexity - Deterministic (predictable) We could also: - Optimize the allocator it uses - We could detect cyclic pointers within the same set explicitly when the program is on idle (for example) if memory is really needed but this is "non a prioritate". Once again it can be used for any problems such as feedback neural networks and all heap allocations are guaranteed to be deleted on the termination of the program. -Phil