Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 16:32:40
On 6/2/2015 2:28 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> Sometime during the review process the presentation of what was being
>> reviewed completely changed. A new version of the library was
>> presented using the current Boost directory structure, with a very
>> full documentation set and the link to the tutorial documentation in
>> the original version being reviewed was removed.
>> I am no doubt a bit stodgier than most programmers but this is not
>> acceptable during a Boost review process.
> Several people have explicitly mentioned that they have reservations
> about the fact that the library was not presented in its final
> Boost-ready form and that they would have liked to examine, and vote on,
> that final form.
> Abel has accommodated their wishes and has done the necessary work to
> present the library in its Boost-ready form. It strikes me as extremely
> unfair to hold that against him. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
The Boost-ready form is what I would like to review but its not only the
Boost-ready form that changed but the fact that the documentation set
changed ( for the better I will add ). But that's not what was offered
for the original review. I don't hold anything against the library
author but I don't think I should be required to approve of this ability
to change a library in the midst of a review so I voted NO. I think it
is going to be really bad, and confusing, to set a precedent by which a
library author in the midst of a review, changes the library being
reviewed for any reason. My vote can be seen as a protest that this was
allowed to happen and has absolutely nothing personal to do with the
library author in question.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk