Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-30 13:27:23


On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:04 AM Thomas Fowlery via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The outcome of the review is presented as a foregone conclusion, with no
> analysis of the actual topics that have been discussed. The review manager
> does not state how the different reviews and issues have weighed in on his
> decision.

Unfortunately I agree. I expect there to be a well written summary of all
the points that were presented by the reviewers, including the negative
ones.

> Meanwhile, the two rejections (and
> some non-review comments) brought up major design questions which haven't
> been addressed by either the review manager or the author(s).

One of the rejections was low-effort and misses the mark in terms of why
libraries are accepted. I assume it was rightly discounted accordingly, yet
this was the opportunity for the review manager to better explain why so
that future reviews may avoid those mistakes.

Thanks


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