John Phillips wrote:
I'm looking to see if there are any good ideas for how to review the two futures libraries that are both currently in the queue. Since they are two different approaches to the same problem domain, isolated sequential reviews does not seem to be a good idea.
So far, the best thought I've had on the subject is to run a single review that includes both libraries, where it is explicitly part of the review to discuss which parts of which realizations are the best choice. This process will need to keep the proposals before the committee in mind, but it is a way to compare and contrast the strengths of the two in close proximity. If we do this, there are a couple of questions that should be added to the usual review process.
* Which interface choices are best suited to the problem domain? * Should Boost offer competing implementations of this feature? * Should the libraries be melded together? * Should a subset of the approved library be restricted to only the facilities and interface in the standardization committee proposal?
There are my initial thoughts. I would like to hear from others on this, as well. I especially would like to hear from the authors and from anyone who has been involved in the evolving standards proposal. Thanks for your ideas.
Just wanted to make a point that we may have a similar situation with the logging library if I manage to finish it before John's review starts. I do agree that the best solution would be either a single review or two parallel reviews. The second way is better for the reviews can be managed by different managers which splits the workload between them. However, I've never managed a review and I don't know if that would be possible/reasonable.