Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 14:32:22
"John Phillips" <phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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.
Actually, I don't care much how the review periods are scheduled (lib1
first, lib2 first or joint), but I still think we should somehow ensure that
we end up with at most one logging library. I don't see a better way than
giving the reviewers only three choices (accept lib 1, accept lib 2, reject
both) instead of four. For the unlikely case of a draw a special procedure
could be put in place.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk