[boost] Re: [function types] Update

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
>>>list."
>>>
>>>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
>> location.
>> 
>
> 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