[boost] Re: Review Wizard Status Report

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 07:42:28

Glen Knowles <gknowles_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> From: David B. Held
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>> > [...]
>> > What is the point of these IDs?  It seems like it adds busywork for 
>> > reviewers and no especially useful information.  Now we're talking 
>> > about making them more complicated...
>> 
>> Maybe they have to do with a nagging feeling that Boost 
>> Libraries don't all have a canonical name, and even when it 
>> seems like they do, people tend to call them whatever they 
>> feel like.  

??  Can't imagine what you're referring to.  I've never had a problem
identifying review emails from their title.

>> Perhaps we should either go with a numerical 
>> index (which the DBA in me prefers), or insist that all 
>> libraries have a canonical name and that everyone use that 
>> name to refer to it (perhaps to make it easier to filter 
>> messages containing the name).
>
> There is also the case of a library having multiple reviews, the
> serialization library comes to mind.

Okay, but when has that ever led to confusion?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com