On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:53:55 -0700, Michael Caisse <boost@objectmodelingdesigns.com> wrote:
On 05/24/2011 10:59 AM, Mostafa wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 04:16:00 -0700, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Mostafa wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 14:42:06 -0700, Vladimir Batov <vb.mail.247@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a Pimpl generalization submission getting close to the top in the review queue. Rob Stewart suggested I'd post it to the new Boost Code Collaborator site for a pre-review. That's what I did with the following link to the pre-review (Review #5):
<http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=5>
Your participation in that pre-review is most welcome.
Is it possible to have anonymous read-only access to it?
If you want to use the Code Collaborator site to examine the library, you must create an account. The good news is that there are other libraries there that you can review, too. If you wish to avoid creating an account, then you can follow the link on the review schedule to the code in the sandbox.
Some may just want to follow a review without necessary participating in one. Requiring a user account discourages such activity, and in my opinion, creates an artificial barrier to further engagement between newcomers, or even existing Boost watchers, and Boost, even if it is a one-sided engagement.
My thoughts,
Mostafa
I'm going to strongly disagree here. Of late, there have been multiple reviews that have only been conducted on the dev list. While I disagree with the decision, I can both appreciate and understand it. The Review Manager role is hard enough while monitoring one list during an energetic review. However, this choice by some Review Managers has resulted in disenfranchised user-only-list members of the community. Just look at the responses on the user list when these announcement were made.
The offered solution: subscribe to the dev list for the duration of the review. The push-back to the suggestion: the dev list is a high-volume list that people don't want to wade through to get review updates from.
A tool such as Code Collaborator is the perfect solution. If you don't want the traffic of the review, don't subscribe. If you want to follow the review, then subscribe and only get updates on the review you want to follow.
There is no barrier to creating a user account. Credit card numbers are not solicited, spam is not sent. The review process is something that can benefit from tools. Please don't create FUD.
michael
Hello Michael, I think you've misread this discussion, or I haven't been very clear in expressing myself. My original, and only suggestion, was to have read-only access to Code Collaborator without the need to create an account, without making a value judgement on whether Code Collaborator was good or bad, or whether the review process should be changed or not. It may truly be that what I point out leads to FUD, but I do think it is a legitimate concern. Please see my response to Robert Stewart for more clarification: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/219704 Mostafa