Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-02 19:44:43

On 02/10/2023 20:24, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

>     I believe the current count is six reviews, and two sets of detailed
>     notes which are most of a review each. More than enough.
> 
>     All recommend acceptance incidentally. My work will be to condense the
>     conditions into a feasible set for Klemens to work upon.
> 
>     I see no current reason why it won't be an accept, just with conditions.
> 
> 
> I know that you know it, but let me still reiterate here the rules of 
> the Boost Review process for the benefit of all the people reading this 
> list.
> The review manager makes the decision whether to accept or reject the 
> library based on their discretion. The recommendations from the 
> reviewers are only means to help guide this decision. No democracy or 
> averaging of the reviews is at play.

Very true. However, as I've often said in the past, the review feedback 
is in my opinion much more valuable than getting a library in or not. 
High quality feedback on software design is rare and valuable in any 
context, Boost remains a uniquely high quality source of such feedback.

Speaking more widely, I've now had one REJECT review, and a few more 
expressing negativity about the design and naming. This will make it 
interesting trying to write a useful summary.

I hope to get the review summary written and posted for the end of this 
week. Non-work life is busy, I built half a solar panel array last 
weekend (and my muscles remain very sore from it), and non-work time 
this week is mostly going into visiting glazing showrooms. I'll see if I 
can find a few hours to collate the reviews.

Niall