From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-10 14:29:47
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>>Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>The library has been updated and the following changes have been made:
>>>You know that the library that's under review needs to remain
>>>available and unchanged during the review period, don't you? It's
>>>fine to post updates, as long as the original is still accessible
>>>through its original URL.
>>Maybe this should be stated explicitly. The following 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
>>doesn't make it clear (for me, at least) that the original version has to
>>remain available after a fix has been uploaded.
> Minor patches without which doing a review would be impeded
> are OK, but if you're just responding to review commentary and making
> improvements, that should be done somewhere other than in the original
Well, all changes may (in certain circumstances) keep a reviewer from "fully
evaluating the library". Some clarification of the guidelines would not be amiss.
I added an archive with the previous version with an '_previous' suffix to the
sandbox. Is it acceptable this way ? Should there be a "roll-back" (maybe
adding more confusion) ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk