Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-27 04:31:31

On 7/26/24 6:47 PM, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
>>>
>>> It's been over a month, shall we schedule the double-review with us
>>> both as review managers?\
>>
>> I don't think that having two review managers is a good idea.  Were we
>> to disagree, it might lead to compromise which the current system
>> avoids.  I also have a personal relationship with Takatoshi which might
>> cloud my judgement or might lead others to question my objectivity.
>> That is, I trust your judgement more than our judgement.  I CAN promise
>> that if you take on the job of review manager of the two libraries, I
>> will make a serious commitment to reviewing both - each in the context
>> of the other.  That is, I will do what I can to make your life as easy
>> as I can. I hope others can do the same.
>>
> 
> Alright let me state it more clearly: I will not be the review manager
> of redboltz/async_mqtt.
> I have not volunteered for that.
> 
> I committed to be the review manager for mireo and I opted to wait
> with scheduling their review as a courtesy for Takatoshi,
> so the timing isn't the deciding factor. I do however think that a
> very long delay becomes unfair towards the mireo team.
> 
> Unless we find a review manager for redboltz soo, I'd just stick to
> the official rules and schedule a regular review for
> mireo/async-mqtt5.
> They've been pretty much ready for review since late April.

A very understandable position.  My concern was to avoid the possibility 
of having two similar and/or conflicting libraries which has happened 
before.  How about relaying this discussion to the "Boost Review Wizard" 
who is the designated person for scheduling reviews.

Robert Ramey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>