2017-03-14 13:01 GMT+01:00 Niall Douglas via Boost
Dear Boost,
I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed libraries awaiting a review.
As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to new growth, I think that waiting around for years for someone to volunteer to manage a review is not healthy. If a library author has invested the very significant effort to develop a Boost-quality library, the least Boost can do is to try harder to provide timely reviews and that means persuading more people to volunteer to manage reviews.
Niall, it is good you are bringing this up. Only sending this message has resulted in one library finding a review manager and the time slot. But let me share a number of observations. Even if all the ideas for motivating review managers work, and you have more people willing to manage the review than the candidate libraries, there will still be one bottleneck: only one library can be reviewed at a time. I personally find it a good thing and would like to keep it this way. Now, maybe this is just a coincidence, but we are just after the review of safe_numerics, in two days the review of Stacktrace starts; the week after it finishes, we have CallableTraits scheduled. There is also a good library waiting for review: PolyCollection. It already has a review manager. It looks like, at least for now, the schedule is full. Actually, I have a question to Joaquín Mª López Muñoz and Ion Gaztañaga. What does it mean that the library in the queue has a review manager, but does not have any time slot scheduled? Your library, Outcome, I suppose it will shortly find a review manager, as it looks useful and needed. On the other hand, I find it surprising that a library like Tick is not in the review queue. I would expect that it would be very welcome by many. Another thought. When I look at the review queue, and also at the libraries listed in BLIncubator, my personal feeling is that some libraries do not fit into Boost. This is just my impression, but it rises a question. There is no bar for libraries to be requested for a formal review, without a review manager. Also, authors for some libraries maybe just want to get some useful feedback, and not necessarily get their library into Boost. Maybe we need some additional stage. BLIncubator was designed to fill this gap. Maybe it can still be made to work. Maybe people who feel something need to be done in the review queue, should go through the list of libraries in BLIncubator, and give their authors feedback. Maybe, we should be doing some informal pre-reviews. Take one library from the queue. Contact the author; check if he/she is still alive, and discuss with him why they want the library into boost and why we don't (or do) like it, and what we would rather expect. Maybe this alone would make the process go more smoothly. Regards, &rzej;