On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joachim Faulhaber Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 5:49 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
So this is my suggestion: (1) Let's increase the standards: Let's make it more difficult for a library to be accepted into boost.
Strong disagreement - we need to make it *easier* to meet Boost Quality (and yet improve quality too).
The main improvement should come from more eyes viewing the code - isn't that the strength of Open Source?
To achieve this we need a way to get more 'candidate code' in real-life use by more people for a much longer period of time.
+1 in principle, there is no substitute for feedback from actual use of a library, but IMO this contradicts with your disagreement: requiring 'candidate code' to be used in real life by more people would make it harder for library developers, not easier. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode