On 1/14/2011 6:58 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:54:46 -0500, Edward Diener wrote:
On 1/13/2011 9:30 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
On 1/13/2011 2:25 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
Once again I will say it although I do not know how to get Boost to change the way it presently does things with reviews: More than one review should go on at any one time and the period for a review should be much longer ( I favor one month ) to give possible reviewers more time to look at and review seriously a library. Imagine 3 or 4 reviews during each month period. That should relieve a few bottlenecks.
+1
Finally another GMane NG/mailing list for just reviews would give those interested in reviewing libraries a better focus on reviews and their responses. Call it the Boost Reviews mailing list and an appropriate gmane.comp.lib.boost.reviews NG.
That might address one of the problems I had as a review manager, mentioned it briefly on IRC today. The biggest pain of the review was sorting out all the emails, it takes a lot of effort& time. Especially since it was not just the reviews themselves, but all the ensuing discussions.
I think reviews tend to get lost amid the other issues brought up on this NG, and therefore a separate mailing list/GMane NG would make it easier to be aware, review, and respond to just reviews. This would especially be true if there were 3 or 4 reviews going on at the same time over a longer period.
In my vision, the reviews for a library are comments on a wordpress article, and the library's documentation links to the review article.
So the submitter of a library should write a wordpress article about it ? That sounds neat. Where is this article published ? On Boost's web site in an appropriate page ? I'm comfortable with that but I am pretty good with writing documentation and information since I have a literary background. Others may not like it as much.