Jeff Garland wrote:
Well, I don't see the 'slowness' as a problem. I think we have a problem because we have a backlog of submissions. There were some significant periods where reviews didn't keep up with the pace of submissions and now we have a bunch of catch-up to do.
Agreed. The slowness is as a result of the backlog, not the reviews themselves. Keeping and maintaining an up-to-date schedule will help a great deal to avoid this in the future.
My only suggestion for shortening the formal review period would be to somehow encourage or develop reviews of libraries in advance -- thus reducing the amount of comment during the formal review. Anyone can go review boost::fsm, just to pick one, and go review the code and docs and post it to the list. The problem is, however, there is an additional dynamic during the formal review -- reviewers read other reviews and discuss them. Perhaps if there was a way of gathering review comments over a longer period (via wiki page or something) we could shorten this last phase.
Agreed. This would also be helpful.
I could accept review overlaps if it became the review managers job to put together a group of people guaranteed to make a review. The size of this group would depend on the library's size.
I think this is very difficult to do practically...
Yes, difficult. But it is worth further consideration. I would be in favor of this approach as a reasonable compromise.