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: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 05:12:15

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:38:54 +0100, 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 don't know if it makes any sense at all to review John's library.  
According to http://torjo.com/log2/doc/html/index.html it hasn't been  
updated for one and a half years while Andrey is actively working on his  
library (for how long has the library be in the queue?). I've been  
following the development of both libraries and admit that I also prefer  
Andrey's (I used John's before I switched to Andrey's). But John's library  
looks abandoned anyway?

Boris

PS: Actually John's entire website looks abandoned - is he still around  
here?