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 18:27:27
> Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost <at> gmail.com> writes:
> As they undoubtedly took different approaches, I think trying to ask
> them to pick one would be unreasonable. The review process ought to
> do a much better job with each evangelizing their preferred approach.
Yes, I understand and unfortunately such a development is not that uncommon. I
was just hoping it might be possible to raise above mine-vs-not-mine stand-off
and to achieve something in collaboration rather than in an elimination fight.
To me both approaches are not that different from the user perspective (I admit
only glancing over the functionalities and interfaces) given that the functional
set for a logging library is pretty well defined. Like sinks management,
formatting management, hierarchical streams, etc. I believe both libraries are
quite similar in that regard from the user perspective. Obviously, I can easily
get this wrong. However, I suspect when the authors submit their comparison
summaries, the functionality lists will be 90% overlapping.
> It would be great if both authors collaborated on whatever combination
> or variation is eventually accepted, but I don't think we can force
> that, nor should we try to.
I never had any force in mind. I just do not like to see where the situation is
developing and I was merely hoping that it could be resolved amicably and to
greater common good.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk