[boost] Re: date_time naming

From: Rodolfo Lima (rodolfo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-04 09:34:31

Maybe some "release canditates" before the actual final release would give
users a chance to see what will be in the following version, and if it is
the case, make some suggestions like this one with date_time.

> > It seems to me that these observations at this stage highlight a
> > weakness of the current review process.  Until code gets Boost
> > acceptance status, too few are prepared to really use it in anger on
> > real projects, and only then do lots of 'issues' start to surface.
> > But by then, changes cause grief to existing users, so there is a
> > reluctance to 'improve' things like naming.
> >
> > Do we need a 'still may be subject to significant change' status to
> > distinguish from a 'pretty much tried and tested' status?
>
> Maybe review managers should do an assessment of how much scrutiny
> has been applied, and solicit a closer inspection.  I know I'd have
> found most of these had I participated in the date_time review.
>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>