boost/more
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/boostorg/more.git synced 2025-01-27 04:30:05 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Refine formal review procedures

Browse Source 
[SVN r8068]
This commit is contained in:
Beman Dawes 2000-10-30 12:41:36 +00:00
parent 55e823de67
commit 83c50a4f21
2 changed files with 44 additions and 36 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

45
formal_review_process.htm
View File

@ -22,13 +22,19 @@
<h1>Formal Review Process</h1>
<p>The Formal Review process determines if a proposed library should be accepted
as a Boost library.</p>
<p>The final &quot;accept&quot; or &quot;reject&quot; decision is made by the
Review Manager, based on review comments received from boost mailing list
<p>The final &quot;accept&quot; or &quot;reject&quot; decision is made by the <a href="#Review Manager">
Review Manager</a>, based on review comments received from boost mailing list
members.</p>
<p>Members only can see <a href="http://www.egroups.com/files/boost/Members+Only/formal_review_schedule.htm">Formal
Review Schedule</a> for the current review schedule.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Reviews are scheduled so that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Each library gets review time proportional to its size, complexity, and
importance.</li>
<li>Only a small number of libraries are under active review at any one time.</li>
<li>Members know ahead of time when a particular library will be under active
review.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<h2>Comments</h2>
<p>All Boost mailing list members are encouraged to submit Formal Review
<p> Boost mailing list members are encouraged to submit Formal Review
comments:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
@ -70,13 +76,28 @@ please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers.</p>
message to the mailing list saying if the library has been accepted or
rejected.&nbsp; A rationale should be provided, but its extent is up to the
Review Manager.</p>
<h2>Notes for Review Managers</h2>
<p>Consider writing a Review page for posting on the web site.</p>
<p>In Review pages or mailing list postings, do quote review comments if you
wish, but don't identify authors of private comments.</p>
<h2>Notes for <a name="Review Manager"> Review Manager</a>s</h2>
<p>Before a library can be scheduled for formal review, an active boost member not
connected with the library submission must volunteer to be the &quot;Review
Manager&quot; for the library.</p>
<p>The review manager:</p>
<ul>
<li>Sets the schedule, after discussion with the boost webmaster, currently
Beman Dawes.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Posts a notice of the review schedule.</li>
<li>Urges people to do reviews if they aren't forthcoming.</li>
<li>Follows review discussions regarding the library, moderating or answering
questions as needed.</li>
<li>Decides if
there is consensus to accept the library, and if there are any conditions
attached.</li>
<li>Posts a message informing members of the review results.</li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, it is the Review Manager's responsibility to make sure the
review process stays on track.</p>
<h2>Notes for Library Authors</h2>
<p>A proposed library should remain stable during the review period; it is just
going to confuse and irritate reviewers if there are numerous changes.&nbsp; It
<p>A proposed library should remain stable during the review period; it will just
confuse and irritate reviewers if there are numerous changes.&nbsp; It
is, however, useful to upload fixes for serious bugs right away, particularly
those which prevent reviewers from fully evaluating the library.&nbsp; Post a
notice of such fixes on the mailing list.</p>
@ -86,7 +107,7 @@ submission file</a> sent to the webmaster for posting.&nbsp; If the suggested
changes might affect reviewer's judgments,&nbsp; post a notice of the pending
change on the mailing list.</p>
<hr>
<p>Revised <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" s-type="EDITED" s-format="%d %B, %Y" startspan -->13 June, 2000<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="19835" --></p>
<p>Revised <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" s-type="EDITED" s-format="%d %B, %Y" startspan -->29 October, 2000<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="38181" --></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</body>

35
submission_process.htm
View File

@ -71,37 +71,24 @@ completely unexpected directions.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
messages is one way to see how this process worked for other boost
libraries.&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Formal <a name="Review">Review</a></h2>
<p><i>[The Formal Review procedure is new as of 9 May, 2000, and will be refined
as experience dictates.]</i></p>
<p>Once a library author feels a submission (which presumably is now in the
files/vault) has matured enough for formal review, the author sends a message
requesting a formal review to the mailing list.&nbsp; Please use a subject in
the form &quot;Review Request: library&quot; where <i>library</i> is replaced by
the library name.</p>
<p>Reviews are scheduled so that:</p>
<ul>
<li>Each library gets review time proportional to its size, complexity, and
importance.</li>
<li>Only a small number of libraries are under active review at any one time.</li>
<li>Members know ahead of time when a particular library will be under active
review.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<p>Before a library can be scheduled for review, an active boost member not
connected with the library submission must volunteer to be the &quot;Review
Manager&quot; for that library. The review manager decides on the schedule,
posts a notice when the review period starts, how long it lasts, and how boost
members can contribute their comments. The review manager collects comments,
chairs any discussions, and then when the review period is over, decides if
there is enough consensus to accept the library.</p>
<p>See <a href="formal_review_process.htm">Formal Review Process</a> for
details.</p>
<p>Members only can see <a href="http://www.egroups.com/files/boost/Members+Only/formal_review_schedule.htm">Formal
Review Schedule</a> for the current library review schedule.&nbsp;</p>
<p><i>[The plan is that the first several reviews will be managed by long-time
boost contributors who will be encouraged to experiment with the review
process.&nbsp;&nbsp; Presumably, successful processes will evolve over time and
can then be documented.]</i></p>
<p>Formal Review schedules are posted on the boost mailing list..&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Boost <a name="site posting">site posting</a></h2>
<p>There are two ways that files are posted on the boost web site:</p>
<ul>
<li>Direct update of the boost CVS repository.&nbsp; This requires write
access, and is primarily used for larger libraries, or for libraries
maintained by very active boost developers.</li>
<li>Packaging all files into submission file, and emailing it to the boost
webmaster.</li>
</ul>
<p>The submission file approach is as follows:</p>
<h3>Packaging</h3>
<p>All of the files which make up the library should be combined and compressed
into a single final submission file using the .zip format.&nbsp; Free encoders
@ -162,7 +149,7 @@ necessary.</p>
<p>Libraries are software; they loose their value over time if not
maintained.&nbsp; Details still hazy.</p>
<hr>
<p>Revised <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" s-type="EDITED" s-format="%d %B, %Y" startspan -->19 June, 2000<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="19847" --></p>
<p>Revised <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" s-type="EDITED" s-format="%d %B, %Y" startspan -->29 October, 2000<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="38181" --></p>
</body>