Re: [boost] Re: [iostreams] Review Results -- Iostreams Accepted

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 14:25:47

Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:48:00 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
>
>> By the same logic, Boost doesn't have to apologize to or accommodate
>> people that are overly sensitive to president speech disorder jokes.
>>
>> No?
>
> Nice trap ;-)  But, it still isn't worth the risk.  Again, there is
> not library in Boost today that has an example that could even
> remotely be deemed political -- you want to change that -- I
> disagree.  I challenge you to refute the logic.  You haven't -- you
> just labeled it censorship and acted like I've done some awful...

No, I don't want to change anything.

The most important part of a formal review is the accept/reject vote. It is 
often accompanied by comments that (a) act as a rationale and (b) suggest 
changes that may cause the vote to change from 'reject' to 'accept'.

As a convenience, when the issues are minor, the library is not re-reviewed. 
Instead, the review manager declares that the library is accepted subject to 
issues X, Y, and Z. The implication being that these issues, if not 
addressed, would cause the rejection of the library.

There is, of course, a fair bit of wiggle room allowed, but that's how 
basically things are supposed to proceed, at least according to my 
understanding.

You can _suggest_ a change that is not strictly necessary for acceptance, 
but you can't _demand_ it.

> BTW, maybe we should limit the poll on this issue to folks that reviewed 
> the
> library. That would eliminate your opinion on the subject...

Indeed.