[boost] Re: FORMAL review of "Output Formatters" - results

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-21 13:40:02

John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Dear all,
>
> We got a lot of feedback relating the "Output Formatters" library [1].
>
> "Yes" votes : 4
> "No" votes:   2
> "Abstain" votes: 2
>
> Conclusions:
> - The docs and naming of the classes/functions could certainly be improved.
> - Seems a lot of people want this for pretty output, testing, debugging.
> - People don't need this library to provide ANY input facilities
> - quite a few people wanted a redesign.
>
> Thus, I wil consider this library "Pending Acceptation". In other
> words, it's considered Accepted by default, but since it will be
> redesigned, a new short review will take place.

I have no opinion whatsoever about the library's merits (I didn't
look), but what you're describing here surprises me.  The group's
reception to the library seems from the vote to have been lukewarm at
best and the library is going to be redesigned.  Of course review
managers have the perogative to render any verdict they like, and I
don't know what "Accepted by default" is supposed to mean exactly, but
it doesn't seem like an appropriate result given what was written
above.

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