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 21:04:13

On May 18, 2016 2:18:16 PM EDT, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>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)
>>>>
>>>> Given the text I snipped, I don't see how one could characterize
>the
>>> review result as "Conditionally Accepted"
>> Vicente will clarify his intent, but his post was somewhat ambiguous.
>
>Robert, Rob, you are right that I could have rejected the library but 
>I've preferred to accept it subject to a new review. 

That still seems confusing. If it needs a new, full review, in what way was it accepted? I presume you mean to suggest that you think it's close to acceptable, and you want to encourage Paul to finish the effort, but can't you couch a rejection in those terms?

IOW, I understand you to be saying, "While the library will be a powerful and useful tool, it is not yet ready for Boost to accept. I very much want Paul to make the changes that have been suggested, and which he had accepted, and to resubmit his library in the near future. Nevertheless, I must reject the library in its present form."

Does that not convey your intent well, including encouraging Paul to finish the task, without being contradictory like your formulation?

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)