Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 02:24:27

on Wed Dec 31 2008, "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Are we reviewing both libraries at once?
>
> That is my understanding.  

As a review wizard, isn't that decision in part up to you?

> However, at this point, until persuaded
> otherwise, I'm inclined to suggest to both authors that they
> should find a way to work together and issue a joint release.  

I am inclined the same way, but if they're going to do that, we should
not use a formal review to sort out any large-scale decisions that they
can make between them.

> I've looked at both libraries and the differences are subtle.  Maybe
> we just need to persuade them that it would not diminish their work in
> any way if they were to submit a joint release.  As both submissions
> are of high quality, I would not want to discourage either author.
>
> It would also seem to me that the logging library proposals have the
> same problem.  It would be my hope that we could get the authors of
> the various logging library proposals to work together and issue a
> joint release as well.

Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz? 

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com