vicente.botet wrote:
I think I understand how the system works. And I know I have a lot of things to learm from this list, as for example, what is the good way to signal something is missing or wrong. I will try to do better next time :)
I hope this will help you to understand what was my initial concern: Should we accept a formal review request when there is no doc, no test and no examples?
Best regards, Vicente
I think I would phrase things differently, to place the emphasis in a better place. Should we schedule a review for a library that is missing any of docs, tests, examples, ... . No, we should not. That is why the prospective review manager is expected to look at the library before scheduling the review. Not as a formal review itself, but to make sure that the library is in good enough shape to warrant a review at all. However, we don't have a good way to make that check before a library author requests a review on the developer list. In fact, in some cases the first anyone on the list hears about a library is the request for review. (This is not a process I suggest, nor is it usually successful, but it does happen.) There have been library submitters in the past that requested review for libraries that just weren't ready for what Boost expects. In some cases, interested review managers have worked with the submitter to help them understand the expectations and more thoroughly develop the library before asking for a review date. However, there is no history of the review wizards checking the library before allowing an author to request a review. To date, the role of the wizards has been more administration and advice than checking library details. Most of our review managers are quite good, and so there is no need for us to try and micromanage their work. We try to stay informed, and on the rare occasion that we need to step in on the details we do so, but that is thankfully rare. (All review managers deserve to be thanked for making it rare, by the way.) John