From: Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess@nist.gov> On Monday 10 January 2011, Artyom wrote:
When and how it would go to review.
My current situation:
- Boost.Locale - I currently maintain two versions: CppCMS's one and Boost one - because I need it and on the other side it is not in boost. - It is stuck in the review queue for about half a year. - I did big boostification effort and I pay for it.
So should I do same mistake with CppDB and wait for another year to get it reviewed and maintain two versions?
Just to put out an idea: it seems to me developers tend to be more interested in submitting libraries than doing reviews or being review managers. Maybe boost could balance the scales by requiring library submitters to either be a review manager or review a couple submissions from others before their library can be accepted.
Optimistic scenario. -------------------- Ok I want to submit a library so I need to be a reviewer or review manager, so lets review couple of libraries - remove the from the queue and then lets submit mine. However even with this very optimistic scenario you'll get a big problem: Catch 22 In order to submit review I have to review a 2-3 libraries first. According to "optimistic scenario" we would run out of libraries in review queue which is nice. But then in order to bring a new library you need to review others... Ooops - there are no! Realistic Scenario ------------------ 1. In order go "gain 2-3" reviews library submitters would be forced at least to review libraries... So they: a. Review libraries and submit reviews for domains that they are barely aware of them or not aware of them at all. This would lead to disaster. Think of somebody reviews cryptographic library or lock-free library and barely know the issues that can be there. Potentially new boost libraries would become total mess. b. Even today there is a big problem that most reviewers mostly concentrate on interface and documentation and barely look to the source code. I had read reviews of several libraries. Unfortunately almost nobody actually reads the code. Why? Because it is hard. Do you actually think that the quality of such "forced" reviews would be better? I think no, in fact the valuable reviews would be shadowed by the noise of these "unless-reviews" Good reviewer should be: - Knowledgeable of the problem domain - Interested in this library and using it in reality - Be able to understand how the library works from inside and to find some points that are actually problematic. 2. If new library submitters would volunteer to be review managers, they would likely now be too familiar with Boost internals and doughty if the quality of their management would be good. Bottom line ----------- This is not going to work. Back to the reviews problem --------------------------- When I started to develop boost.locale I hadn't had to support wide strings as they useless for my project I need Boost.Locale for - CppCMS. IMHO wide strings should die at some point. However keeping in mind that Boost users are using wide stings I created a full support of them in Boost.Locale. I did many things that I would not do them at all if I knew that Boost.Locale would be stuck in review queue despite the fact that it actually received several positive (and actually real high quality) reviews from the begging without actually having formal review. Now I have other smaller library that I think works very well and would fill important gap that boost Misses. Now: should I put the effort in Boostification of the CppDB library or users and can happily use it without being under boost namespace? I think yes. It is not the question of quality of the library or its usability it is just pragmatic question: Should I do lots of work and see its totally wasted? My $0.02 Artyom