From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-01 10:00:13
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Pavel Vozenilek
| Sent: 01 March 2005 01:56
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: review of FSM nears to the end - any
| more reviews?
| "Jonathan Turkanis" wrote:
| > I think the review should be extended.
| > I have not read the FSM reviews yet, but unfortunately IMO
| even if all the
| > reviews are very favorable there simply have not been enough yet to
| > justify
| > accepting a medium sized library. It looks to me like only
| four people other than you and Andreas have posted on FSM so far.
| The FSM was discussed _a lot_ in the past on this mail-list
| and Usenet so I expected similar feedback now.
| Perhaps it could be interpreted: as the library reached
| mature state where everybody's happy enough.
I agree with this interpretation.
Personally, I have read the tutorial and tried an example or two,
but really I know so little about FSM compared to other reviewers
that I feel it would be most presumptious to write a review.
Perhaps there are others in the same knowledge state.
But I can see the need for FSMs, and I feel the submission meets it,
judged mainly on the expert reviewers, however few.
Apart from truly general items like filesystem, serialization,
reviews of many items are likely to have this problem.
Is the solution for many more Boosters (currently in lurk mode),
even with only modest knowledge of a particular item,
to submit 'reviews' which essentially say:
"I am convinced by other more expert reviewers"?
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk