Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
I agree that it is the library author's responsibility to find a review manager, not the boost community. Based on what we see happening it is clear that the libraries that get reviewed and eventually accepted are the ones where the author is active and successful in finding a review manager for themselves.
There's a big deal of truth in that.
KTC wrote:
Take an example of Xint. There were plenty of comments, suggestion and review the various time it was "beta'd" on this list asking for comments. And that's not counting the fact that a arbitrary precision integer library has traditionally been a perennial topic of suggestion for GSOC ideas. Yet, almost exactly 6 months to date, it still hasn't had a review manager assigned. Is that really a lack of interest in such a library, or more a lack of review managers?
I have participated in many arbitrary precision integer library discussions on this list and am using gmp with my own library. Why have I never gotten an email asking me to be the review manager for Xint? Has Hartmut been asked? Has Thomas Klimpel been asked? Has Beman, has Berend? You have to ask individual people directly (preferably in person at boostcon) and you will find that they are often happy to be a review manager. Adding a library to the review queue and complaining you can't get a review manager isn't the same thing as asking a person to be your review manager and the differnce is this: one way works and the other way does not.
There are two ways: - Have it be author's responsibility to ask potential review managers - Have somebody else ask folks The latter approach might be better because "somebody else" might be more involved in Boost, and therefore know the best folks to review something. - Volodya -- Vladimir Prus Mentor Graphics +7 (812) 677-68-40