From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 14:36:02
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>> important, if i is possible. Rather than reject the library because
>>> these problems haven't been addressed, let's try to address them
>>> during the review.
>> That's unacceptable IMO. Review period is not a time to address any
> Why not let reviewers try? No one is forced to write a review. If these
> can't be resolved, and the review manager -- informed by the opinions of
> reviews -- concludes they are show-stoppers, the library will be rejected.
Because review period is quite short and it's very easy to came up with
quick solution which wouldn't work in a long run. If issues couldn't be
resolved then it's obvious that submission should be rejected.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk