[boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result

Subject: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-03 10:36:09

Hi,

I will be out for two weeks and I wanted to at least give the result of 
the Boost.Fit library review even if I would need more time to have a 
complete report.

Summary
=======

The review of the proposed Boost.Fit library ended on Mars 20, 2016. The 
verdict is:

   Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)

There were too much concerns about the documentation and what exactly 
this library is proposing and not enough reviews commenting the design, 
code and test for each one of the proposed functions.

 From the review discussion I deduce that there is some interest in the 
library, and that some people don't understand yet what the library is 
proposing.

Paul has started already to take in account some if the issues raised 
during the review and a lot of them must be resolved before we re-try a 
new review.
There were some discussion about the name of the library, but there were 
no consensus. Paul is free to change the name of his library and see how 
people react.

On behalf of the Boost community, I would like to thank Paul Fultz for 
the work he has put into the Fit library so far.
I encourage him to continue to evolve this library and to bring it back 
for a new review.

We had seven 6 formal votes, and 2 more votes without a complete review 
abbreviated here:

Steaven Watanabe: No in his current state
Zach Laine : Conditinal acceptance
Krzysztof Jusiak: Accepted
Artyom Beilis : Rejected
Peter Dimov : Accepted (no review)
Manuel Sancher : Accepted (no review)
Rob Stewart : Conditinal acceptance ???
Louis Dionne : Conditinal acceptance

There were other people that participated on the review giving their 
advice respect to a specific issue.

I thank each of these reviewers, and indeed everyone who invested some 
time participating in the discussions.

If you feel that I have misrepresented your position, or have omitted or 
garbled an important point, please respond: the archived mail thread 
should accurately reflect the will of the community, even if this 
message does not.

Detailed Report
===============

You will need to wait yet for a month before I will be able to do it.
On the mean time there are a lot of issues that must be addressed and 
that are part of the github issues.

For more information see:

Github:https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/tree/boost

Issues:https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/issues

Documentation:http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/

Hopping this helps,
Vicente Botet Escriba