----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Diener" <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re:[rfc] rcpp)
Andrey Semashev wrote:
Hi Gennadiy,
snip...
4. Review process. The candidate review can start at any time by the review manager (no queue) and should take at least 2-4 month. There can be any number of reviewed being run concurrently. The "candidate review" page should include abstract, review package, and some kind of review submission mechanism (maybe boolean yes/no + an actual review). The review should be per person and each reviewer should have an ability to modify the review. Review discussion mechanism can be web based on rely on mailing list or some mixture of these.
I disagree, in several points.
* 2-4 months is a very long period. You can't expect review manager and the library authors focused on the review that long. Also, for simple tools, such as Boost.Move that is in the queue now, there's nothing to review during all that time. On the other hand, I agree that a few weeks may not be enough for some larger scaled libraries. Which leads me to conclusion that the review duration should be individual, decided by the author, review manager and review wizards, taking into account other reviews.
* Concurrent reviews is wrong. We don't have enough reviewers and wizards to make sequential reviews. Allowing parallel reviews won't make it better. The review quality will also drop.
I disagree with you here and agree with Gennadiy Rozental. In order to get more libraries reviewed and possible approved more quickly overall, and also to allow reviewers more time to review a library than is currently given for Boost reviews, I feel it is important that concurrent reviews take place with each one lasting over a longer time period than currently usually occurs.
One of the biggest factors in keeping possible reviewers from reviewing a Boost library is that the usual two week time frame is just not enough. One month would not be unjustified and perhaps two months would not be too long. In order to get more libraries reviewed given a longer time frame for each review, it would be necessary to allow reviews of more than one Boost library at a time.
Currently the reviewer can sent reviews before the review starts. The single problem I see is that we don't use to do it. IMO, the contents of the library to reviex muste be fixed as soon as a date is announced. The review manager could call for reviews at the same time s/he announce the date of the review. Best, Vicente