Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?

Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 16:44:50

Am Tuesday 17 November 2009 20:32:22 schrieb Andreas Huber:
> "John Phillips" <phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:hdt4vf$ufm$1_at_ger.gmane.org...
>
> >  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.
>
> Thoughts?
>

one review manager for both libraries, even if there are seperate review 
periods.
as far as I know the review manager isn't bound to the "votes" anyway, so he 
should be able to summarize all the problems people see in either library and 
suggest a way to address those, be it by accepting one of the two libraries, 
merging them, or rejecting both.