Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-08 09:56:09

From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
> Our review wizard, Tom B. has suggested to me that we allow subsequent reviews
> to begin even if a previous review has been extended. This means 2 or more
> reviews will possibly be running in parallel. I don't believe we have a
> written policy, but I'm quite certain we have never run reviews in parallel.
> I also think it is a very bad idea. I believe reviews will suffer
> because people that want to review all the libraries in progress and
> participate in the discussion will not have enough time to do so. For most of
> us boost is a part-time thing -- we only have so much time per week to
> participate...
> 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'm glad the IOStreams Library review was extended. I'm still
working on mine. There's no way I'd have time for yet another
review simultaneous with this one. I'd have to ignore one or the
other. Therefore, I quite agree with your conclusions.

Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer           
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at