Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May25th and ends June 7th
From: christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden]
Date: 2015-06-02 17:03:35


>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.

I stayed silent until now but I feel I have to slightly steer the review in
the right (IMO) direction, which means in the direction where the review is
based on the quality of the library and documentation, not on pure

I as review manager allowed this library to make it to the review based on
the opinions that:
- the quality of the library seemed high
- the documentation seemed much higher than usual boost level (counting
- the structure is not important. If reviewers would be disturbed by this
fact, a mini-review could have checked the new directory structure.

Abel even obliged as to in record-time present a new boost-conform
structure. The review is not finished, so I'm failing to see the problem.
I can only agree with Peter's above comment.

Taking the risk to see the Boost community criticize my decision, I want to
make it clear that I will not base my acceptance decision on votes made by
pure formality but on votes criticizing the library implementation, quality,
documentation, scope, usefulness and this with any directory structure the
reviewer feels more comfortable with.

I eagerly welcome any review helping me to take a decision on the above



Review Manager

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at