Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 09:25:02
Andreas Huber-3 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
> 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?
> Andreas Huber
> When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
> from the address shown in the header.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
AFAIK, even if we have a review manager for the review of the John Torjo's
library, the library has not been changed since it was rejected. I have
never understood why it is on the review schedule.
Anyway, I think that we should review a library as soon as the review
manager and the author have found a date.
Of course compare other libraries covering the same domain are welcome at
the functional and performance level.
-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Shouldn%27t-both-logging-proposals-be-reviewed-in-the-same-formal-review--tp26381021p26408205.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk