Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-31 13:06:11
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> PS I haven't felt qualified to make a worthwhile review, but I would vote ...
If a Boost review can be of the form "+1 to what that guy said" or "-1
becaues of what the other guy said", that would probably diminish the
value of the process substantially. :)
> Many of the objections seem insubstantial.
On the other hand, I personally don't see the reviews as
unsubstantial. I recall that you voted to accept Outcome v1 as an
unfinished library purely on faith in Niall:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> [What is your evaluation of the design?]
> [What is your evaluation of the implementation? ]
> Way above my pay grade. Complex for reasons I don't pretend understand.
> [How much effort did you put into your evaluation?]
> Re-reading documentation and another quick skirmish.
> [Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?]
> [Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?]
> In the end, we now have to decide if this is all going to be 'OK in the end' and have faith in Niall's skill, judgement, and determination to see this functional and finished. I do. So that's a yes.
I felt your review was legitimate. And I think that a reviewer who has
rejected Outcome v2 because they feel the opposite (to what you do,
about the author) is equally so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk