From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-25 11:54:12
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> |As for BoostUnordered, I really don't think it qualifies for fasttrack
> |review (see the requirements at
> yeah, that definition does not take into account things in the tr that are
> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk