vicente.botet wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Phillips" <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu>
In many cases, those old files are not maintained or are even removed after the review is done. If it becomes part of Boost, it will be in the trunk. If it does not, then it is entirely up to the author to decide whether they even want it to be accessible anymore. It is entirely reasonable to have the old information disappear when the review is done, and I think it is a good choice.
Do you find reasonable that this information is no more available to the Boost community? What about replacing the review dates by the accepted date?
The only things that are no longer available are libraries that did not pass review and the author decided to remove, and libraries that did pass review where the author decided to remove out of date versions. Even in those cases, there may or may not have ever been a copy on boost servers. Once something has been released by boost, it is available even after changes have been made. So, yes I am fine with authors deciding what to do with their own pre-boost release libraries. If people really want the accepted date, I would need a clear definition of what that means. Is it the last day of the review, the day the manager tells us that it was accepted, the day it was first added to trunk, the date of first boost release, or some other date? What information is contained in that date that is more useful than the review dates? So far, I think it has been done this way because no one has seen value in changing the date later (The current method predates my time as a wizard, and even my time involved with boost, so I don't know the reasoning.).
If you're a library author and plan on submitting a library for review in the next 3-6 months, send Ron or John a short description of your library and we'll add it to the Libraries Under Construction below. We know that there are many libraries that are near completion, but we have hard time keeping track all of them. Please keep us informed about your progress. Maybe the wiki could be more adequated. It could also contain ongoing libraries or libraries that are no moree maintained, but that can help the Boost community.
The explicit notification gives Ron and I something hard to miss when we are trying to keep the schedule up to date and trying to keep people informed. I would appreciate continuing this, even if people also put useful information on the wiki.
Where do you plan to put this information? On the Schedule page, another Page or/and the Review Wizard Report?
I would like to know it so I can keep track of the reviews and libraries we need to coordinate in the forseeable future. It also gets authors thinking about whether they are ready to submit and how close to submission they are. This information usually also shows up on the developer list, but if people send it directly to Ron and I, we again are less likely to miss something important.
Thanks, Vicente
I should warn you that showing an interest in improving the review process was how I wound up as a review wizard. If you aren't careful you too could get drafted for more involvement. ;-> John