Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 06:36:24

On 19 May 2016 2:04 a.m., "Rob Stewart" <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?

There is an encouragement factor in a conditional acceptance, but the
expectation is that the mini review would only need to touch the issues
that the review manager feels need to be addressed instead of reevaluating
the whole library. As a minimum, the question of whether the library is
useful at all has already been positively answered.

Finally the review manager really has lot of power and while they should
guide their decision based on the review themselves, they only respond to
the review wizards (I.e. there is no vote counting).

-- gpd

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