Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 22:23:21
Andreas Huber wrote:
> According to the schedule, John Torjo's Log2 library will be reviewed
> soon (currently 3rd in the queue). There's another logging proposal by
> Andrey Semashev (currently 13th in the queue).
> It seems to me that these proposals are sufficiently close in
> functionality that only one of them should be accepted into Boost.
> Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to review both libraries in one
> (longer) formal review?
Because the delay in starting library reviews is caused by the lack
of review manager volunteers instead of the lack of time to hold reviews
the order of reviews is determined by who has a manager and is ready to
go. The order in the list (It really isn't a queue.) is determined by
when the library is submitted for review. (New submissions go at the
bottom.) So, don't read any significance into the position in the list.
As for scheduling a joint review: That was tried with the Thread Pool
libraries and I heard many comments from people who were not happy
reviewing two at once and no one who was happy. This included the review
manager, the library authors and some of the reviewers. So, I am not
inclined to run two reviews at the same time unless someone has a very
compelling explanation for why this time would be different. I have not
spoken with Ron about this, so I don't know if his opinion is the same
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk