Boost logo

Boost :

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 18:00:04

On 6/2/2015 4:45 PM, Abel Sinkovics wrote:
> Hi Edward,
> On 2015-06-02 22:32, Edward Diener wrote:
>> 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.
> The documentation set did not change (except for the mpllibs -> boost
> renaming in that as well). See:
> and

When I clicked the index.html for the original docs I got a link to the
tutorial and that's it. Now I see that has been changed and the link has
been removed.

When I click the index.html for your updated docs I get a page with an
introduction and a whole bunch of links to:

     Getting started
     User manual
     Library reference

I approve of this much better documentation but that's not what you
originally had in HTML form.

I like your HTML documentation improvement. It's what Boost
users/developers expect and not just the tutorial which you originally
offered, as good as that tutorial is.

My point is that you did the right thing by greatly improving access to
your documentation in HTML form, but you did it at the wrong time. It
should have been done before the review, or once the review was over it
should have been done. I object on principle to any libraary author
making changes in any way to what is being reviewed once the review
starts. My vote and point of view is a protest of that situation. I
think it sets a very bad precedent, that of library authors making
changes to what they are offering for review as the review is happening.

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