Boost logo

Boost :

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
>>> this library is proposing and not enough reviews commenting the
>>> 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

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.

(Sent from my portable computation engine)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at