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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk