From: rasmus ekman (m11048_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-15 11:50:11
If it's okay with you, your post doesn't seem to require a detailed
response from me.
I've made some comments, positive and negative, well-founded or misguided,
and any rehashing of them just adds noise to the workload of the review manager.
(IIUC he's the impartial party who will weigh various points, the willingness
of library authors to change, or motivations not to, and synthesize a
collective judgement. I'm under the impression we don't need to argue
every millimeter, just clarify the points sufficiently for him to record them.
For this reason I also underscored the limitations of my review
and the underlying perspective.)
So, your task is not to sway me. Outvote me instead.
After seeing the numeric_examples code posted the other day
I'm rather hoping this happens, but I interpreted it that the extension
is not part of the submission.
See also http://boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Submitters
- though it doesn't explicitly cover this case.
Other boosters and the rev.mgr hopefully know how to judge these things,
including the progress made over the last few weeks (my impression is
that GIL was just a little rushed to review).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk