Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 14:18:16
Le 18/05/2016 à 10:29, Rob Stewart a écrit :
> 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.
>>> 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.
Hi all, and sorry for not have my home work done yet.
Robert, Rob, you are right that I could have rejected the library but
I've preferred to accept it subject to a new review. The main reason is
that I believe that this library would be useful for the C++ Boost
community. It's not ready yet, but the features the library proposes are
Rob, the conditions will not be for conditional acceptance, but for
having a new review. Sorry if this was not clear. with my sentence
> Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
Unfortunately I've no time to do the report of the modifications that
will be needed before the new review. The deadline for Oulu C++ standard
committee is end of this month and I have some papers to finish.
Please, be patient,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk