Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Vladimir Batov (vladimir.batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 17:03:17
> Zachary Turner <divisortheory <at> gmail.com> writes:
> also, i think it should be mandatory for each library author to review the
> other author's library.
1. I second that. It is only common sense and the usual practice that every
suggestion comes with a comparison summary of what that suggested functionality
introduces new or does better compared to the existing facilities. And surely
the lib. authors are the best positioned to provide such summaries.
2. IMO we should avoid fragmentation (of the user base and dev. efforts) and
inevitable confusion. Therefore, there should be only one boost::log library.
Having two separate reviews puts those libraries on uneven footing which is
unfair and detrimental to the ultimate outcome.
3. Does it *have* to be lib1 *or* lib2? In the end, we do not want lib1 or lib2
or lib3. Instead, we want the best and that is probably a joint effort and
selective combination of all the above. Given the situation, would that be
unrealistic to ask the respective authors to come up with a joint proposal?
Would not that eliminate all timing and squabbling issues and ultimately deliver
the best outcome to the community?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk