-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:25 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
Why do you think the review system in place is extremely slow?
Currently there are a lot of libraries to review, but no review managers. That means that
vicente.botet wrote: the user community don't want to spend a little bit of their time to manage a review.
In addition, the last review didn't had too much of reviewers (I'm also
concerned by this point)
Here are my 2 cents. I've expressed this opinion previously, but nothing really changed since then. <snip>
You are not alone is having made similar suggestions before, which I support (though I would urge to 'Keep is Simple Sir' leaving the review manager and moderators to make up the rules as they go along rather than setting up a complex set of rules. It is ain't broke, don't fix it!). (And I've been suggesting use of additional logos to make clear what is reviewed and released, and what is not). But nobody has yet responded to the vital question of whether there are resources to support a parallel tree to trunk, in addition to sandbox, for what we are calling 'candidate' libraries. It really needs to have an identical structure, and tests which are run regularly, like trunk. This will encourage more users, who have an important, and often informed, voice in reviews. Can those good souls doing the thankless task of providing SVN files and testing (thanks!) comment please? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com