From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message:
My only suggestion for shortening the formal review period would be to somehow encourage or develop reviews of libraries in advance -- thus reducing the amount of comment during the formal review. Anyone can go review boost::fsm, just to pick one, and go review the code and docs and post it to the list. The problem is, however, there is an additional dynamic during the formal review -- reviewers read other reviews and discuss them. Perhaps if there was a way of gathering review comments over a longer period (via wiki page or something) we could shorten this last phase.
This sounds like a good idea. But would it require that proposed libraries be
I think this might be workable.
frozen for a certain period before the formal review begins? I know I took advantage of the long wait (something like 8 months) between proposal and review of iostreams to make lots of improvements, some as recent as one month ago.
Perhaps a library must be frozen to be submitted for review, provided the review occurs within 30 days (or some such time) after being put on the review queue. If the author decides some dramatic changes are in order, the library would be withdrawn from the review queue, changes would be made to it, and it would be resumbitted when ready again. Otherwise, early reviewers would be looking at a moving target. Perhaps for a library to be put on the review queue, it must be carefully reviewed by a panel, of some minimum size, not including those closely following or involved in the development of the library. IOW, get some fresh, independent perspective on the library, which should flesh out many documentation issues and even some design issues, prior to the formal review. Such reviews could take place via e-mail or on the Wiki. Still, larger libraries take time to be reviewed, and invite lots of comments and discussion. If a person reviewed a library ahead of time, their review would appear early in the review cycle. However, others would still need time to perform an on-demand review, so you really can't compress the review period. This process would just help to ensure that libraries are more mature before being subjected to a formal review. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;