Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 23:45:39
Zachary Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Huber <
> 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.
I believe my statement was that I'm not inclined to do it unless
someone can tell me why this time will be different. So, if you can
explain what the process needs to be to make reviewing them together
work well, I'm all ears.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk