Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 00:29:47

On 4/3/16 7:36 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will be out for two weeks and I wanted to at least give the result of
> the Boost.Fit library review even if I would need more time to have a
> complete report.
>
>
> Summary
> =======
>
> The review of the proposed Boost.Fit library ended on Mars 20, 2016. The
> verdict is:
>
>   Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
>
> There were too much concerns about the documentation and what exactly
> this library is proposing and not enough reviews commenting the design,
> code and test for each one of the proposed functions.

<snip>

Given the text I snipped, I don't see how one could characterize the 
review result as "Conditionally Accepted"

What is this suppossed to mean exactly.  That it should be integrated 
into boost as soon as it meets some list of conditions?  What are these? 
Who determines when they are met.  I'd feel much more comfortable with 
something like

The library is rejected.

Many reviewers felt that the library had a lot of promise but needs 
significant alterations and/or enhancements before it can accepted into 
boost. The author is encouraged to address the issues raised in the 
review and resubmit it.

Wouldn't the be a more accurate and fair assessment and better proposal 
for future action?

Robert Ramey