Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th

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:
>    https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs/tree/master/libs/metaparse/doc
> and
>    https://github.com/sabel83/metaparse/tree/master/doc/src

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
     Tutorial
     User manual
     Library reference
     Versioning
     Performance

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.