Extremely useful. I guess it needs to be boostified before it will pass a review though.
- Christian
I understand this procedure... But rather I would ask a question.
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?
Good question.
Understood, that seems far from optimal. I kind of took for granted that libraries must be boostified before submitted for review, but does such a policy actually exist? The problem with lack of review managers has been going on for a while, how about this (already suggested maybe?): Split the review manager into two positions: * Responsible person 1 - Has knowledge on Boost's infrastructure, such as, tools, documentation, test and other best practices that should be followed by all libraries. Has enough background in boost to make a sound judgement when the review ends based on the discussions, without getting into the gritty details of the code or domain at hand. * Responsible person 2 - Has knowledge about the domain and will take more active part in guiding the library towards boost's standards in terms of generic programming etc.. I think it is difficult to find people that are comfortable in both the above, which I assume they have to be to act as a review manager? My cents, Christian