Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk>
I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted into Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
Yes. Less than ideal.
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
Definitely it shouldn't be the norm. In this case, I'm glad the library was accepted, though. I've been looking forward to the typeof review for a long time, but wasn't able to particpate because of preparation for the release. Maybe it's not a good idea to have reviews when a release is imminent. We might considered a rule that there have to be a certain minimum number of thorough positive reviews before acceptance, but in my view a review manager ought to be able to give appropriate weight to the fact that there were a small number of reviews and accept the library if appropriate. Perhaps the best thing would be for some daring review manager to set a precedent by rejecting a library on the basis of too few reviews. (Has this ever happened?) Jonathan