Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 16:03:32
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Huber <
> 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?
I definitely support this effort. I mean, how stupid would we feel if we
review the first one, and then a little bit later we review the other one
and find out it's a strict superset of the first, and also completely
superior? Things like this need to be unquestionably prevented, regardless
of the logistics that need to go into making it happen. I understand that a
dual-review was tried before and nobody liked it. Instead of just
concluding "therefore parallel reviews don't work", I think the conclusion
should be "we need to address the concerns people had with parallel reviews
at the time".
also, i think it should be mandatory for each library author to review the
other author's library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk