Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 14:12:20
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 21:03:35 MSK Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Not exactly. As Giovanni has explained, a conditional acceptance means
> something different than rejecting the library. We have identified
> during the review a lot of points Paul is already taking care of. Most
> of them concerns the documentation, some the design, and not too much
> the implementation. The issues that must be fixed are most of them
> already reported in github. I have not identified any issue that
> couldn't be managed. What is missing is a report to the fixes that are
> expected before a review. I don't use here explicitly a mini-review
> because I want to let it clear that the whole library would be under
> review and I will hope that we will have some deep reviews, not only for
> the documentation but also the implementation and the tests.
> My decision has already been taken and I don't see any reason to change it.
Not to judge your decision, but what you described above sounds like the library should
have been rejected (for a followup resubmission with a subsequent full review).
'Conditionally accepted' typically means the library is mostly ok to enter Boost, with a
few issues that have to be fixed prior to that. A followup mini-review is typically for
checking that those few points were fixed since the full review. Naturally, those
conditions for acceptance need to be announced at the end of the full review (otherwise I
don't see how they can be fixed or verified).
Note that rejecting a library does not mean it's not useful or that it will never enter Boost.
It merely means it will not enter at the point of this review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk