Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 19:58:51
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
> Seen the reactions that I'm seen in this thread, I start to think that maybe
> I could be wrong with my decision.
> I believe that we will need this 10-day review period if no more to review
> the revised Fit library. This is why I'm talking of the need of a full
> review. I don't consider to take time to review a library a bad thing as the
> first goal is for me to improve the library in all its aspects.
I did not observe the Fiber review, so I can't comment on that. I also
agree with Andrey (and Vladimir and Robert)'s assessment: It seemed
like your intention was a rejection (for this review) but that Paul
was encouraged to address some of the issues raised, resubmit for a
further review - which could carry a different result)
This is probably because, as you've said, a full review of the library
would be required.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk