From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 18:50:33
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Jonathan Turkanis" wrote :
>> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>> 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 issues 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.
We have to be able to trust reviewers to judge what will work in the long run.
Ideally, a library will have been widely used for a considerable period before
review. Often that's not the case, however, and reviewers must judge the library
by its specification and implementation without the benefit of experience.
If a reviewer can propose a way to handle shared libraries, e.g., which stands
up to the scrutiny of other reviewers and to the sort of experimentation that's
possible during a review period, the proposal could still receive as much
scrutiny as several Boost libraries prior to acceptence.