On 17.04.2012 1:00, Jens Mueller wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 16:23:32 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few good comments, but no review manager
offer. Could someone please take this role?
I will do this.
But I will need to get more familiar with the process. And add it
to
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue for future review
managers.
The review process is based on Boost's:
http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager
The page is shorter than expected. Last time I checked I found something
way longer. Since the Phobos' review process is based on Boost's where
does deviate?
It's peer review followed by voting and that's all about it.
I don't think you should seek any formal standards, documents,
guidelines, etc.
The manager role is rather simple:
1. Manger picks module from review queue and posts an announcement that
formal review of it starts today. Post should contain relevant
information about module and links to source/documentation. Also
importantly it sets the exact time the review ends and the exact time
voting ends. (usually 2 weeks review, 1 week for voting)
2. When review ends Manager ether opens a vote thread.
If it's obvious that module needs futher work (on explicit request from
author) Manager may choose to prolong or postpone review thus putting it
back into queue.
3. When vote period ends count up the votes and declare the result.
And that's it.
There are no hard rule on which module has the priority in queue.
It is loosely calculated on basis of how long it was ready for review
and how important the functionality is.
P.S. If you are not sure are up to it just say the word and I'll
volunteer instead. We need to push this forward as the review queue is
going to overflow real soon ;)
--
Dmitry Olshansky
