Gordon Woodhull wrote:
We did update the formal review process and related pages to
invite people to use the Incubator to garner feedback before their library
is ready for a formal review. [*]
That’s how I found out about it, so I would say the submission to the incubator is at least encouraged by Considering that, it seems a bit weird that the incubator has so little activity.
I don't think Robert ever intended the Incubator to replace the formal review or the role of the Wizards. Instead, IMO it is better thought of as a replacement for the unscheduled
part of the review schedule (aka the Queue), and a better way to verify
the basic requirements for submitting a library. And reviews can be
submitted and responded to before the formal review,
without getting buried in the mailing list.
That’s how I understood it, but from my - admittedly sparse - experience, the mailing list is an excellent place for feedback, because it is guaranteed that quite a few people will actually get the message. When I have my library ready for submission to the incubator, how is anyone going to notice it? Are enough people subscribed to the feeds that a library gets more attention than in the mailing list, or at least attention from different groups of people? It seems like the most fundamental element of the incubator is a dedicated community that is willing to participate, to test and review. And it is clearly missing exactly that. --- Felix Uhl
Felix Uhl wrote
That’s how I understood it, but from my - admittedly sparse - experience, the mailing list is an excellent place for feedback, because it is guaranteed that quite a few people will actually get the message.
When I have my library ready for submission to the incubator, how is anyone going to notice it? Are enough people subscribed to the feeds that a library gets more attention than in the mailing list, or at least attention from different groups of people?
a perennial problem. Note that if you search "Safe Numerics" you'll find the first link goes to the incubator so it is being indexed. However, googling Safe Integer doesn't get you there so it boils down to the same problem that any web site has in getting the right people.
It seems like the most fundamental element of the incubator is a dedicated community that is willing to participate, to test and review. And it is clearly missing exactly that.
Of course. But this problem isn't unique to the incubator. At boost we've always been concerned about the very small numbers of people who are willing to invest the effort to participate. Can you believe that we've had reviews where only two people in the entire world posted reviews? It's true! I've tried to help by making it more convenient to post a review. I'm hoping that will help - but we can always use more ideas (as long as I don't have to implement them.) I Am incrementally extending the incubator to add functionality which I believe will be helpful. I am also going to set aside time to recruit developers of existing libraries to add them to the incubator (basically it's just filling out a form). You'd think that at least THAT would be easy. But when you start looking at all the C++ libraries in github - you find that only about 3% meet the (very low) bar of requirements for inclusion into the incubator. Basically this is the existence of browsable documentation and tests. If anyone happens upon a library which you think is a good one and that library meets the minimum requirements for the incubator - encourage them to submit it. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Incubator-Status-Report-tp4668747p4... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
participants (2)
-
Felix Uhl -
Robert Ramey