From: Jim Apple (japple_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-22 22:21:25
Jeff Garland wrote:
Is hopelessly out of date. The version on CVS is better.
>>Looking through the list archives, I'm finding what appear to be a
>>lot of ignored formal review requests. I must be missing something.
> My guess is that you aren't. The bar at boost is pretty darn high and there
> is a large number of false starts. Plus some of what you might be seeing in
> the archive is 'informal review requests'.
I do expect false starts. It would be nice for the review wizard to
just say no "out loud", however.
Counting only libraries with a "formal review request" (in the words of
the authors), I count 7 (fc++, circular_buffer, minmax,
aligned_storage.hpp, lexicographic, disable unused variable warnings,
Named Params) libraries/utils with no response from the wizard.
In addition, Thomas Witt said he would add tribool to the review
schedule, but it's not there, even in CVS.
As a side note, FC++ brought this to my attention, as it it quite
substantial, went through an informal process first, and then went
through substantial work to boostify it. If it isn't eligable for
formal review, I'd love to know.
I dunno, maybe I missed the note. I don't want to jump to conclusions here.
I also am not trying to be too hard on anyone here. Doubleplus thanks go
to the volunteers that make the administration stuff tick.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk