Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] No documentation for pointer semantics
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-06 09:15:35
On 6/6/2014 4:51 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
>> Sent: 06 June 2014 03:55
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] No documentation for pointer semantics
>> On June 5, 2014 10:08:15 PM EDT, Vladimir Batov
>> <Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I'll try to re-do the relevant parts as you suggest.
>>> Won't do in in a hurry though remembering my experience with "convert",
>>> right? :-)
>> Since the review hasn't started, change all you like.
> I unhappy with a review rigid policy that nothing can be changed during a
> review. It isn't always helpful.
> We never accept anything without requiring some changes?
> Can we instead now use git's easy branches to specify a fixed 'master' branch,
> but allow the author to update a 'develop' branch as the review develops?
I believe that changes can be made to a reviewed library during a review
as long as the 'master' branch does not change. After all we want all
reviewers to be looking at the same 'master' branch as the code to be
reviewed. But if the developer wants to make changes to other branches
during the review I think this should be allowed.
> That way typos and more serious mistakes can be corrected as the review
> proceeds. This will avoid people being confused by these.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk