Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 11:22:15
On 11/20/09, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Gottlob Frege wrote:
>> 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.
> Lib A would be left in limbo for an indeterminate time, with this approach,
> which isn't particularly fair either.
True, but there seems to be long time between acceptance (often
conditional) and final submission anyhow.
It would be nice of course for libB to be reviewed asap after libA.
But I don't disagree with you overall. Just trying to offer suggestions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk