headers
John Phillips | 7 May 21:22
Picon

[review] BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT review results


  Here are the review results for the Scope Exit library, submitted by
Alexander Nasonov.

  I would be remiss if I didn't begin these results with an apology and a
thank you. The review wizards are sincerely sorry that the result of this
review took so long to be presented, and very grateful that Alexander has
been so patient and according to a post on the forum has even been working
to improve the library in the interim when time allowed.

  The following people contributed to the review.

Kim Barrett, Steven Wantanabe, Oleg Abrosimov, Andrey Semashev, Peder Holt,
Johan Nilsson, Maxim Yanchenko, Pavel Vozenilek, Aaron LaFramboise, Ben
Kuppers, Goran Mitrovic, Tom Brinkman, Martin Wille, Joseph Gauterin, Matt
Gruenke, Dave Abrahams, Christian Holmquist, Mathais Gaunard, Michael
Marcin, Daniel Wallin, Zach Laine, Sid Sacek, Wang Yun, and Ilya Sokolov

  After carefully considering the review comments, I'm pleased to announce
that the Scope Exit library is accepted into Boost.

  As is almost always the case, there are some notes for improvement for
this library, and in this case there is even a suggestion for a substantial
future restructuring.

  Let's start with the big one first. As it is currently implemented,
SCOPE_EXIT suggests a method for creating a general closure mechanism as a
library. This is a useful enough idea that many of the reviewers strongly
encouraged Alexander to do it, and provided ideas for implementation
details. Alexander should continue to work on this, and when it is ready for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ronald Garcia | 16 May 23:45
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Review Wizard Status Report for May 2008

==========================================
Review Wizard Status Report for May 2008
==========================================

News
====

December 7, 2007 - Forward Library Accepted - Awaiting SVN

December 16 - Unordered Containers Library Accepted - In SVN

December 21 - Factory Library Accepted - Awaiting SVN

January 13, 2008 - Switch Library Accepted Provisionally - Awaiting  
submission for
mini review

January 18 - Singleton Library Rejected - Awaiting resubmission, John  
Torjo
has already volunteered to manage the next review

January 30 - Flyweight Library Accepted - Awaiting SVN

February 13 - Logging Library Rejected - Awaiting resubmission for new
review, John Torjo has already resubmitted and Gennadiy Rozental has  
again
volunteered to manage the review

February 27 - Floating Point Utilities Library Accepted - Awaiting SVN
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
dan marsden | 18 May 00:59
Picon
Favicon

Egg review result

This is a summary of the review of the Egg library by Shunsuke Sogame.

The main issue with this review was the low number of reviews submitted, despite a reasonable amount of
discussion on the list. In total only 1 review was received, from Giovanni Piero Deretta. This review was a
yes vote, contingent on a mini review of improved documentation. Given this extremely low review count,
unfortunately Egg cannot be accepted into Boost at this time. The remainder of this summary will cover
some of the themes relating to lack of reviews, and also other highlights of the review.

I'll start with some positive notes. Several comments on the list suggested that functionality in Egg was
wanted by users, and that they would like to see Egg in Boost in some form in the future. Several writers also
pointed out the high quality of the implementation of Egg, and technical issues were not really a focus of
the discussions.

During discussions on the developer several reviewers comments on the quality / style of the
documentation for Egg. Motivation seemed to be a big issue in these comments, questions of the form "why
should I use Egg versus Boost.XXX" were common. There typically were good reasons to use Egg, but these
were not apparent to readers of the documentation. A related issue that cropped up was the sheer scale of
Egg, one potential review was withdrawn as the scale of Egg was so large that the reviewer felt he could not
do it justice. A couple of reviews pointed out that the documentation could be hard to follow, sometimes as
the assumed expertise of the readers was possibly too high, and also for other reasons, such as the __
prefixed notation used in a lot of the documentation. Both Giovanni and 
 Daniel Walker generously offered to provide assistance with the documentation for Egg.

Joel de Guzman pointed out that that the timing of the review was poor, as it was in the immediate run up to
Boostcon, and many potential reviewers would be busy with preparation for that event. This comment was
supported by several people I discussed this with at Boostcon.

There was much incredibly detailed technical discussion, which I cannot do justice to here. Those
interested will be able to find the discussion on the mailing list archives.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane