Andrew Hundt wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
So, is there anything we can do about it?
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one concerned about this. I have my own ideas about how to make documentation at www.blincubator.com I haven't gotten any feed back on this but I feel better trying to flog my stuff. One thing we could do is tweak the reviewing process to formalize the following. a) review - unchanged. It's not required or even expected that an author have fully formed documentation since it's a major burden for something that might not be accepted. b) review accepted with a statement to that effect by the review manager. - unchanged. // new step c) post review step - 1) author announces that library is ready to be added to the boost code base. 2) review manager certifies that the library has addressed all contingent requirements specified in the statement of acceptance. Interested parties have the opportunity to comment on final package. 3) any issues not in the original review manager's acceptance are considered issues settled by the original review and subject to discussion. d) author injects library into the boost code base. Hopefully this small edition will be seen as something that we should be doing or have been doing all along and that it won't be considered a new burden. Robert Ramey