At Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:56:47 +0100, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/1/10 Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess@nist.gov>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
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.
+1 That's what I thought: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/05/166423.php
Maybe it's time to refresh those ideas and to implement them instead of only discussing them.
+1. What do the review wizards think of this idea? If they're on board, I don't think there's anything standing in the way. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com