Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-23 18:09:52

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:54:19PM -0500, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé <
> kaballo86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On 23/01/2014 04:23 p.m., Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Lars Viklund <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Please consider making a post starting a new thread with a distinct
> >>> subject so that it'll be easier to find this report.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So noted. Are you asking me to repost the same content on the three
> >> mailing lists? It might be a long enough mail to produce a bit of
> >> eye-rolling if I do.
> >>
> >> I expect that from this point on, an interested party would find it
> >> with a search engine.
> >>
> >
> > While you repost it to the three mailing lists please use a subject like
> > "Boost.Fiber review results" or similar as customary, so that it can be
> > easily found with a search engine.
> 
> 
> That sounds like a second request for me to repost, and as yet no one has
> asked me not to.
> 
> Would it be reasonable to post a new message with the requested subject
> line, whose body is a link such as this?
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/boostusers/oOYfJ1yf_Sg/DwljFDR6gWoJ

If you're going to link externally, it would probably be a better choice
to use one of the gateways (gmane or mailman) listed on the Boost Lists
page instead of the comparitively emphereal and for some, inaccessible
Google Groups.

As for reposting over and over again, the existing top-level post is
probably reasonably fine for most people.

My strong objection was against the invisibility of a post to a deep
nesting level in a wide thread.

Judging by the links to previous results on the Boost Review Status page
http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html there seems to be a
mixture of top-level posts and more hidden posts to review threads, but
none as deep as this one as far as I can see in my sampling of the
reports.

It'd be nice if whoever does the review of the next Boost library ends
up doing it "right" from the beginning :)

-- 
Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]