Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-09 11:47:47
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> When a potential library submitter evaluates Boost policies, those policies may be considered too onerous or not. Â If the former, Boost might be denied a useful library, but the denial wasn't unfair. Â All submitters face the same policies and choose whether to accept them. Â Whether a policy is well or ill conceived can be determined more objectively than can its fairness.
> There could be a required evaluation step after the usual review to provide final acceptance. Â That would make it easier to accept warnings in a library under review. Â If the author does not meet the (not yet) established warnings policy after a tentative review acceptance but before final acceptance, then it would be rejected. Â I assume that such a two-stage review process would be fairer in your mind?
I don't think another review is necessary. What if it was the same
review process, but to be allowed to merge to a release branch you
have to meet the new stricter guidelines? That seems like a good
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk