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: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 16:03:32

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Huber <
ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden]> 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?
>
>
>
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.

Zach