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: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 16:53:11

And for my thoughts on reviewing the logging libraries, in general:

- I didn't follow the other combined review closely
- the plural of anecdote is not data (ie one case might not be enough
to generalize from)

- if we do separate the reviews this means:

Review Lib A
reject/approve/ask for changes/etc
Review Lib B
reject/approve/ask for changes/etc

But since we, in this case, do know that somewhat similar (if at least
by general topic of 'logging') libs are being proposed, then why not:

Review Lib A
comment/ask for changes/ etc

Review Lib B
comment/ask for changes/etc

reject/approve A, B

ie don't reject/approve A before reviewing B.

Otherwise B seems to be at an unfair advantage.  ie if B is
significantly different (in scope, trade-offs, etc), then we can
accept both.  If there is significant overlap, then the feeling is
"well B is fine, but we already have A..."

ie separate reviews, single approval?
Tony