Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 21:49:10

On 1/13/2011 8:42 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:26:32 +0100,
> vicente.botet wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dave Abrahams"<dave_at_[hidden]>
>> To:<boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM, vicente.botet
>>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another case could be that the library depends on another library
>>>> not yet scheduled.
>>>
>>> That's actually no reason to hold up the review.  Any dependencies can
>>> be recoded as implementation details for final submission until
>>> they're ready to be reviewed on their own.
>>
>> You are right if the dependency is an implementation detail, not if
>> the dependency appears on the interface.
>
> Meh.  You can always alias the dependency into the library under
> review for the purposes of the interface.  In other words, instead of
> using boost::bar::x in the interface of boost::foo::f, use
> boost::foo::bar::x.

I think the idea is that if library X depends on library Y, and library 
X gets reviewed before library Y, and library X gets accepted then:

1) Library X has to wait for library Y to be reviewed and Library Y has 
to then get accepted into Boost.

or

2) Library X has to duplicate the functionality of whatever it uses in 
Library Y.

This does create some problems especially if library X heavily depends 
on Library Y and Library Y is not accepted into Boost.