[boost] Re: Type of Review for Unordered AssociativeContainers&HashFunctions

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-25 11:54:12

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uu0o0641j.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:421D9494.A06BA029_at_tid.es...
>
> |As for BoostUnordered, I really don't think it qualifies for fasttrack
> |review (see the requirements at
> |http://boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Fast-Track).
>
> yeah, that definition does not take into account things in the tr that are 
> not
> in boost.
>
> I can't see any  good reason this should not be a fast-track review.

| Fast track reviews were supposed to be reserved for components that
| are already in use as an implementation detail by one or more boost
| libraries, and that we now want to make publicly-accessible.  If we
| are going to change that policy, we ought to be very clear about _why_
| we're doing that, and just what the new policy should be.

I think tr components should be allowed special status. What's the point in
putting tr components through a normal review, when there can be no interface 
changes?

If the definition of fast-track review is not suitable for tr components, then 
let us call it a
tr review. The important aspect of such a review is that it should be fast.

-Thorsten