Re: [boost] Re: Type of Review for UnorderedAssociativeContainers&HashFunctions

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-27 13:09:08

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 26, 2005 5:40 pm
Asunto: [boost] Re: Type of Review for 
UnorderedAssociativeContainers&HashFunctions

> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Fast as in soon? Or just spending less time on the review? I don't 
> mind 
> waiting in the review queue so unless anyone really wants to see 
> this in 
> Boost as soon as possible, I guess that Boost.Hash should be fast 
> tracked, Boost.Unordered should go in the queue, maybe for a 
> shorter 
> than normal review. Is that okay with everyone?
> 

Is perfect with me at least :) I guess the review wizard
should allocate a period for fasttrack reviewing Boost.Hash
(which, if I understand it OK, can run in paralel with other
regular reviews.) Tom?

As for my negative vote to accepting Boost.Unordered for
fasttrack, my main concern is that other authors are patiently
standing in line for their own reviews, and the size and scope
of this library does not justify for a fasttrack treatment, in
my humble opinion. Other than that I think the lib is needed
and will eventually make it into Boost.

Best,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo