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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 04:29:51

On May 18, 2016 12:52:06 AM EDT, Paul Fultz II <pfultz2_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>> 
>>> 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.

Those points don't mean he can't question the meaning of Vicente's phrasing.

>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).

Vicente will clarify his intent, but his post was somewhat ambiguous. Despite the intent of the reviewers, he could, as the Review Manager, reject the library and call for a new review after changes. He could, instead, list conditions you must meet to satisfy a conditional acceptance, but that's not certain at this point.
___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)