Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 10:05:05
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Boris Schaeling <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?
> PS: Actually John's entire website looks abandoned - is he still around
If this is the case (as hinted to by another poster later in the therad as
well, who mentions that the library is exactly the same as when it was first
submitted), then I see no reason to review it at all, and then this becomes
a moot discussion.
Assuming all that info is correct and John is no longer around, then I would
only support reviewing this library if Andrey's is rejected.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk