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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: P F (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-03 12:56:35

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On 4/3/16 7:36 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> The review of the proposed Boost.Fit library ended on Mars 20, 2016. The
>> verdict is:
>> 
>>   Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
>> 
> 
> snip ...
> 
> The about could be more accurately and succinctly stated:
> 
> That is the library is rejected.
> 
> The effort is not without merit and the author is encouraged to address the concerns raised by the reviewers and re submit the library.
> 
> 
> I followed comments on the review fairly closely.  I think that submitters could improve their chances of success by doing somethings differently. I've always been forth coming on giving advice to these authors.  Of course, unsolicited advice isn't generally effective, but its good therapy for those that offer it.  In that vain I offer the youtube video of my presentation at CppCon 2014 "How you can make a Boost C++ Library".  I was sort of stunned by the lack of interest - only 14 attendees and pretty disappointed by the reception - about average according to statistics.  Oh well, one keeps trying.

What are you suggesting I should’ve done differently? 

> 
> Robert Ramey
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost