Tracking Review Requests and RM Applications
And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How about potential review managers? ...
I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any changes to the review process. My personal preference would be to not change anything for now. I think the process works as well as can be expected. The "Silent Rejection" issue is a non-issue. I cant think of a single case where this has been a problem. The poster of a proposed library just has to follow the rules established at http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm. Immediate response is not always possible, but they may need to be persistant. The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have "languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library. Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick. Keep trying is all that I can say. As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will always be a problem.
Hello Tom, The Boost Library Requirements seems to concern only the submission of a new library. What is the procedure to follow if I want to submit a proposal to modify or add a new functionality to an existing library? Cheers, Colas On 6/15/07, Tom Brinkman <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote:
And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How about potential review managers? ...
I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any changes to the review process.
My personal preference would be to not change anything for now. I think the process works as well as can be expected. The "Silent Rejection" issue is a non-issue. I cant think of a single case where this has been a problem. The poster of a proposed library just has to follow the rules established at http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm. Immediate response is not always possible, but they may need to be persistant.
The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have "languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library. Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick. Keep trying is all that I can say.
As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will always be a problem. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Tom Brinkman wrote:
I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any changes to the review process.
Just to clarify... the ticketing system João is referring to is the Boost Trac, at svn.boost.org. While it is hosted at the same place as the Subversion repository, and the two tools can work together, the Trac is a separate entity that deals primarily with developer-centric documentation (through its Wiki) and managing bug reports through its ticket system.
The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have "languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library. Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick. Keep trying is all that I can say.
As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will always be a problem.
Agreed. A library submission should not enter the ticket system until it's gone through preliminary submissions, has sufficient interest, etc. - Doug
participants (3)
-
Douglas Gregor -
more effective thinking in the exceptional C++ programming language -
Tom Brinkman