At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:58:52 -0500, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:56:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Actually, I'd +2 if you said a review should be open until the library gets into the main distribution. And even after that, reviewing the quality of the library should be on-going and shouldn't stop at the point of inclusion into Boost. ;)
_That_ is a really cool idea.
I liked too. How many times I wanted to review a library, but didn't find any time in the two or three weeks they were being reviewed. Sometimes these libraries are in the review queue for much longer than that, and a review could've been possible before or even after.
There's nothing stopping you from submitting reviews for any of the pending libraries right now.
Yeah, but there's nothing encouraging it either. It would be cool to have a system that made it more rewarding to write reviews of Boost libraries, in such a way that reviews would continue after the review period. Of course, that's mostly social engineering and someone would have to figure out how to accomplish it :-) Maybe if the reviews were more carefully archived and somehow viewable separately from everything else, that'd be a first step. Just thinking out loud, now. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com