From: Andreas Huber (ah2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-06 14:53:20
Jeff Garland wrote:
> This leads me to the conclusion that the current review schedule
> needs to be redone. 1st because IOStreams has been extended and 2nd
> because we agree that the current schedule is too aggressive. See
> I realize it is a major pain to rearrange the agreed dates, but I
> don't think overlapping reviews is the answer.
I'd also prefer at least two weeks per library, probably followed by a
1/2 week delay before the next review is started. For libs big in
functionality like e.g. mpl, spirit, etc. I'd even schedule 3 weeks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk