On 1/13/2011 12:26 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
- A library can only be added in the review schedule if the author has time in near future to have a review, where near future is, say, 3 months.
well, it would be great if the review would actually happen within a time frame of 3 months. unfortunately, it is a bit different in reality: the boost.lockfree library is on the review queue for more than a year. with 6 reviews per year (like in 2010) and 15 libraries earlier in the queue, i don't expect a review to happen before 2013. in a way, this is kind of nice since the dependency to boost.atomic (c++0x-atomics for c++-98) will hopefully be obsolete since compilers may already be reasonably c++0x-compliant.
so a time frame of 3 months is probably more a time frame of 3 years :/
This is laughable if it were not so sad. Anyone with a finished library does not want to wait years for possible acceptance into Boost much less even more time before such an accepted library is added officially to a Boost distribution. Once again I will say it although I do not know how to get Boost to change the way it presently does things with reviews: More than one review should go on at any one time and the period for a review should be much longer ( I favor one month ) to give possible reviewers more time to look at and review seriously a library. Imagine 3 or 4 reviews during each month period. That should releive a few bottlenecks. Finally another GMane NG/mailing list for just reviews would give those interested in reviewing libraries a better focus on reviews and their responses. Call it the Boost Reviews mailing list and an appropriate gmane.comp.lib.boost.reviews NG. I will be glad to write up a short formal proposal for this, whether it is listened to ot not, if someone tells me what the format might be and what I do with it after I am finished.