[boost] Re: Type of Review forUnorderedAssociativeContainers&HashFunctions

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-28 03:53:07

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:32ded832c0cd.32c0cd32ded8_at_tid.es...
>
>> 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?
>
> | 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.
>
> IMO any TR compliant component should be allowed into boost without any
> major review. It's already been through a major year-long review in the 
> standard committee.

As far as I'm concerned, the test suite for a TR component is the most
important part of any submission that implements it.  The test suite
deserves careful scrutiny.  Maybe not two weeks of scrutiny, but
probably a week.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com