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 23:51:05
Scott McMurray wrote:
> 2009/11/17 Vladimir Batov <vladimir.batov_at_[hidden]>:
>> Given the situation, would that be unrealistic to ask the respective
>> authors to come up with a joint proposal?
> 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.
> 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.
Generally any time two or more developers suggest the same library on
the list there is a quick suggestion that they try to work together and
pound out one "better than either original choice" library. Sometimes
the developers follow this suggestion, other times they don't. I too
would prefer that they always do, but it doesn't happen.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk