From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-16 15:07:17
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.auc.dk> writes:
> |6. Yet, this hasn't undergone any formal review, so some of you might
> |(with reason) object to its being commited to the CVS. From our point
> |of view, we have three valid alternatives:
> | * Boost members agree to have it in CVS without more ado.
> | * As this is used by Boost.MultiIndex, Boost.Hash is suitable for
> | fasttrack review.
> | * This is untolerable and the library should be push_back()'ed to
> | the review queue. Meanwhile, Boost.Hash should live as an impl
> | detail of Boost.MultiIndex.
> I would prefer a fast-track review. I think we have plenty of room
> in between reviews. If you need a fast-track review manager, then
> I don't mid doing so.
Thanks for volunteering! Let's see whether Daniel (who is the
author) is OK with this. In case I've got no more comments
on (1)-(5) (I'm afraid I won't) I'll commit the multi_index stuff
to the CVS, plus Boost.Hash code, without the docs, tests, etc.
If the fasttrack review is positive, Daniel will be able to
upload the remaining material: if negative, I guess I'll have
to move his code to a detail namespace :(
Anyone disagrees with this procedure? What's the current backlog
for fasttrack reviews?
(Daniel, you here?)
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigaciÃ³n y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk