Tom Brinkman-2 wrote:
judging by the review schedule (almost no review managers), that would mean boost isn't very interested in new libraries in general.
It would seem so.
I would recommend that authors try find a review manager before they request a review.
Review managers are generally recruited from people that already have a library that has been approved in boost, that means you luke (hint).
The wizards could open it up to anyone. Its been considered, but rejected in the past.
I would like to focus attention on something different.
That would be creating a "non-stable" branch of boost, where the proposed libraries would live for a while, get some exposure.
There had already a lot of review managers that do not have a library accepted, for example Thread-Safe Signals Frank Hess Stjepan Rajko Finite State Machines Andrey Semashev Martin Vuille Singleton (fast-track) Tobias Schwinger John Torjo Switch Steven Watanabe Stejpan Rajko Physical Quantities System Andy Little Fred Bertsch binary_int Scott Schurr and Matt Calabrese Pavel Vozenilek Xpressive Eric Niebler Thomas Witt Typeof Arkadiy Vertleyb and Peder Holt Andy Little Singleton Jason Hise Pavel Vozenilek State Chart Andreas Huber Pavel Vozenilek Promotion Traits (fast-track) Alexander Nasonov Tobias Schwinger Output Formatters Reece Dunn John Torjo FC++ Brian McNamara & Yannis Smaragdakis Mat Marcus Fixed-Point Decimal Bill Seymour Jens Maurer Math Constants Paul A. Bristow Jaap Suter ... and there are other on the review queue AutoBuffer Thorsten Ottosen Robert Stewart Task Oliver Kowalke Vicente Botet without forgotten the review Wizard John R. Phillips and Tom Brinkman Accumulators Eric Niebler John R. Phillips Function Types (Re-review) Tobias Schwinger Tom Brinkman Generic Image Library Lubomir Bourdev Tom Brinkman Wave Hartmut Kaiser Tom Brinkman As you can see review manager is not restricted to library authors. I call any invested booster to request the possibility to be the review manager of a library if he knows the domain. Since most libraries are header file only, it should not be a problem. While not all will compile on all platforms, and certainly not have perfect documentation, it would be a place for future boost authors to elicit feedback. The experimental libraries would not affect the core boost libraries in any way. I'm absolutely convinced that it would encourage lots more participation. There is so much more to do, we haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible. The core boost authors have put in place a wonderful place to come and share ideas, but we are letting it flounder. I don't see clearly which will be the criteria for including a library in this non-stable group. Any suggestions? Which test platforms will be available to test the non-stable libraries, the same as the trunck? Will these libraries be delivered? Doesn't the Sandbox pays already the role of non-stable libraries? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Review-Queue-Needs-Attention-tp26500094p26507135.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.