Jose <jmalv04@gmail.com> writes:
I would like to bring up some ideas to improve the review process:
1. Have a priority list with the new libraries that boost users need ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) must have libraries b) nice to have c) interesting
e.g. is Boost.SQL a nice to have or a must have ? is a Boost.Relational (e.g. RTL-like) a nice to have or a must have ?
And who's going to make those decisions?
e.g. the current Property List library being reviewed: - shouldn't it be part of the existing program options library (if its intended usage is similar to program options library vs a generic tree container) ?
How is this related to library priority? How is this related to improving the review process?
This would help people working on related libraries to focus their effort or even contribute when they were not planning to. Also, review time will be optimized and the review queue can be prioritized based on this list. The names can be proposed at this stage so that they are general as intended.
This could also help identify existing libraries that need to evolve, like the ongoing effort in Boost.Threads
How?
2. Have a high level review before a detailed review --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you're proposing sounds like it adds more process, which can be extremely hard to manage and will probably slow things down.
a) Is the library in the priority list ?
And what if it isn't?
b) Should it be a separate library or merge with an existing one ? There can be lots of small libraries but many might not continue to evolve or be world-class.
The list is pretty self-regulating in this regard. By the time a library comes up for formal review, there should have been plenty of discussion on the list already. Have you read the process carefully?
c) Is the library really world-class or broadly useful?
That's the job of the review. If we do that in the "high level review" what's the point in having the "detailed review?"
There can be libraries that have multiple functionality but none is great. A good example for this is with libraries that incorporate some xml functionality but it's very limited and then you have to rely on another library for broader usage.
That sounds very theoretical. Have we had actual problems arise that would be addressed by this change?
The priority should be to add libraries that are designed with the intent of becoming a world-class library (even if they offer limited functionality when reviewed). The outcome of the high level review should be whether to engage in a detailed review or wait till some conditions are met.
How would this improve anything?
3. Encourage specialized libraries -------------------------------------------------
Who would do that encouraging, and how would he/she do it?
There are many libraries that have a smaller audience but if they are designed to be world-class then they bring value to boost.
Of couse. They aren't discouraged today.
Also, there has to be a process so that libraries can continue to evolve once they are part of boost, considering that in many cases the original authors may not be available to contribute.
That's something we could use help in developing.
This needs thinking but it would be good to get more people to contribute to libraries in which they were not the original authors.
Who would get those people to contribute, and how would he/she do it? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com