Quantcast

[review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review

Boost - Dev mailing list
Hi Everyone,
In the context of the discussion around review process improvements, I
wanted to report another problem that I do not know how to solve. But maybe
you do.

Extending the review period by allowing the review on the BLIncubator looks
like a good idea, but it also comes with a problem. The review applies to a
particular commit (if we use GItHub terms), that is, to the state of the
library on a particular branch at a particular point in time. If I see a
review on BLIncubator (not that I see many of them), how do I know what
commit it applies to and if it is even irrelevant.

It might be partially relevant, but it puts me in an uncomfortable
situation, that I will be investing my time in something that is likely to
turn out to be useless.

Also, I might consider submitting a review into BLIncubator, but what
chances I have that it will be considered in the formal review, given that
the formal review may work on a different commit: possibly on a quite
different library by now?

Regards,
&rzej;

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also, I might consider submitting a review into BLIncubator, but what
> chances I have that it will be considered in the formal review, given that
> the formal review may work on a different commit: possibly on a quite
> different library by now?

What about reporting (tracked) issues rather then doing a review?


--
Olaf

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review

Boost - Dev mailing list
2017-03-17 11:31 GMT+01:00 Olaf van der Spek via Boost <
[hidden email]>:

> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Also, I might consider submitting a review into BLIncubator, but what
> > chances I have that it will be considered in the formal review, given
> that
> > the formal review may work on a different commit: possibly on a quite
> > different library by now?
>
> What about reporting (tracked) issues rather then doing a review?
>

For instance in GitHub. Yes, that works. But then I need the purpose of
BLIncubator to be re-explained to me. Is it a place that simply links to
GitHub repositories?

Regards,
&rzej;

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [review process] candidate library maintenance disturbs the review

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On 3/17/17 2:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> In the context of the discussion around review process improvements, I
> wanted to report another problem that I do not know how to solve. But maybe
> you do.
>
> Extending the review period by allowing the review on the BLIncubator looks
> like a good idea, but it also comes with a problem. The review applies to a
> particular commit (if we use GItHub terms), that is, to the state of the
> library on a particular branch at a particular point in time. If I see a
> review on BLIncubator (not that I see many of them), how do I know what
> commit it applies to and if it is even irrelevant.
>
> It might be partially relevant, but it puts me in an uncomfortable
> situation, that I will be investing my time in something that is likely to
> turn out to be useless.
>
> Also, I might consider submitting a review into BLIncubator, but what
> chances I have that it will be considered in the formal review, given that
> the formal review may work on a different commit: possibly on a quite
> different library by now?

This is really a criticism of the blincubator and it's the way that it
handles reviews.   It's a valid issue that did not occur to me when I
made it.  Since the blincubator hasn't gathered many reviews as I had
hoped it would, it hasn't been a big issue.  The original idea/hope that
people would review submissions independently of the boost formal review
process/timeframe hasn't really taken off.  Until that starts to happen
it's kind of a moot point.

Robert Ramey


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Loading...