From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-10 15:36:42
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
In that case you're in the clear.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk