Boost logo

Boost :

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-10 13:51:15

Andy Little wrote:
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:d8c7s8$9kj$
>> The library has been updated and the following changes have been made:
> A Plea from the ex - typeof review manager.
> IMO It should be a cast iron rule that no changes to the library
> implementation or documentation can be made during the review period.
> Note that the formal-review process document states this informally, but
> I think that should should be changed to Will and If a library author
> wants to supply bug fixes , they should be should be made available as
> separate versions of the library. IOW the version that is reviewed is
> the oriiginal one.

Well, it's not up to me to change the rules. But I added an archive with the
previous version with an '_previous' suffix (to avoid further confusion) to the

> Heres the quote.
> "A proposed library should remain stable during the review period; it
> will just confuse and irritate reviewers if there are numerous changes.
> It is, however, useful to upload fixes for serious bugs right away,
> particularly those which prevent reviewers from fully evaluating the
> library. Post a notice of such fixes on the mailing list."
> FWIW I had a tentative review of the library lined up, but now ...
> which version should I be reviewing ? (e.g. I too was disappointed at
> the lack of examples. Apparently this is now fixed etc , etc).
> IOW changing a library during its review period means a lot of effort on
> the part of the reviewer, which most of us simply dont have time to make.

I'ld say, review the version you downloaded when starting. Only update, if you
have enough time and want to, or if something stops you from "fully evaluating
the library".



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at