On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, tom brinkman wrote:
With 10-15 days allocated per review and a 5-10 day buffer, we will be able to review at-most 1 to 2 reviews per month or 12 to 24 libraries per year.
A goal of 24 review per year strikes me as far too ambitious. I think 12 libraries is a more realistic goal (and allows for some dead time, such as right before a release, where no reviews are in progress). The reason Boost is so highly respected in the community is because of the exceptional quality of the libraries it contains. We should not sacrifice that quality by rushing the review process. This community has demonstrated time and again that the rigorous (even gruelling) review process results in superior quality libraries. Good reviews take time (~2 week review period seems reasonable). I am willing to wait a few more months for a library if it means higher quality. Do others think that 12 libraries a year is too few? (or too many?) Regards, -Tom Wenisch Computer Architecture Lab Carnegie Mellon University