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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 00:52:06

> On May 17, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On 4/3/16 7:36 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Given the text I snipped, I don't see how one could characterize the review result as "Conditionally Accepted"
> 
> What is this suppossed to mean exactly.  That it should be integrated into boost as soon as it meets some list of conditions? What are these? Who determines when they are met.  I'd feel much more comfortable with something like
> 
> The library is rejected.

You did not take part of the review of the library and are not the review manager for it.

> 
> Many reviewers felt that the library had a lot of promise but needs significant alterations and/or enhancements before it can accepted into boost. The author is encouraged to address the issues raised in the review and resubmit it.

There were 6 votes for the library and 2 votes to reject. There were only two votes for conditional acceptance from Zach Laine and Louis Dionne. Talking to them personally, they did not intend for the library to be resubmitted(they listed there conditions for acceptance in the review).