🚀 go-pugleaf

tgl+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes:

>> I think the 
>> community would be much better served by a much faster and much less 
>> nit-picky mechanism that precluded a reviewer from being able to say
>> things like, "I don't like the way he did that".    

>Well, I think that even very nit-picky comments may be valuable; I would
>certainly want to hear every suggestion that the reviewers might have
>(assuming they are knowledgeable people :-).  So I don't want the reviewers
>to feel that they can't say "I don't like the way he did that".

Of course, both points of view have merit.

Perhaps the problem is that c.s.r is being asked to be too many things
by too many people and suffering as a consequence?

>Of course, the whole point of c.s.r is to post only software that meets a
>standard of quality defined by the reviewers.  I'm just wondering if the
>standard is currently set a little too high, or if there is maybe not enough
>flexibility in the process to accommodate reviewers' opinions versus
>authors' opinions.

Assuming differences of opinions aren't a problem, keep c.s.r's
quality requirements as is. Nothing can help quality more than having
a premier review group that people aspire to post to.

Perhaps what *is* needed is an intermediate group that help packages
evolve to a quality level required by c.s.r.

Hopefully comp.sources.testers will become that ideal intermediate
group. It will especially help first-time posts as, in general, they
are far too vulnerable to substantial changes to be suited to c.s.r.

Who knows, if c.s.testers is a success. Perhaps the quality
requirements of c.s.r can be raised over time!


Regards,
Mark D.


PS. What a pleasant surprise that most of this discussion is trying to
be productive.


--
Mark Delany                                          markd@werple.pub.uu.oz.au