From: tom brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 04:55:43
Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:00:38 -0700, tom brinkman wrote
> Tom --
> A couple thoughts.
> 1) The review schedule is too aggressive. One week per review with no
> is going to kill us and not give enough time for complete reviews. 1.5
> with .5 weeks in-between is more doable. This also gives some buffer for
> review run-overs. The current week is a reasonable exception because we
> have 2 libraries that overlap the same area.
> 2) We might need a break to finish the release, so hopefully there is some
> flexibility in the schedule.
> 3) I'm guessing boost::geometry2d isn't really under development...
> 4) These periodic reports are great -- keep up the good work!
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Ok. I'll be less aggressive with the scheduling. The time schedule that
you suggested is good rule of thumb, thank you. I'll leave it up to the
review managers of the individual libraries to change the review dates,
as they deem appropriate.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk