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
> > 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.
one review manager for both libraries, even if there are seperate review
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk