Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-20 12:17:50

Next message: Niall Douglas: "Re: [boost] Boost 2.0 ideas (was Re: Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost"
Previous message: Rene Rivera: "Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'"
In reply to: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"
Next in thread: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"
Reply: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Just leave everything in suspended animation until you make the final
> report.
>
> Note to future reviewers: Reveal whole review or nothing at all. Your
> life will be easier.

*Nod*.

Is the AFIO review taking the "or nothing at all" route, then?

Glen

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Fit-review-Mars-3-20-result-tp4685046p4686358.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Next message: Niall Douglas: "Re: [boost] Boost 2.0 ideas (was Re: Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost"
Previous message: Rene Rivera: "Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'"
In reply to: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"
Next in thread: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"
Reply: Robert Ramey: "Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk