Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-04 22:10:52

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 1:40 PM Kostas Savvidis via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> If the reviewer is expressing that the design is flawed, that should be
> weighted on its technical merits.
>

I agree, visible design flaws should be well articulated by reviewers and
accounted for by the review manager. However, that is not what happened
here. Instead, the review made this equivalent statement:

"The library is designed a certain way, and it works. However it would be
better if the library was designed this different way."

This may be true, and based on conversations with other contributors who
have been here longer than me I don't think it is a strong reason (on its
own) to reject a library. I think there would be value in having a more
formal explanation of the criteria used for acceptance. I say this without
first checking to see if we have already written something up on the
website (Turcan?)

It was explained to me that a library should be accepted if Boost is better
off with the library than without it, and I think it was implied that the
library meets or exceeds the level of quality expected of its interface,
implementation, and documentation. Does the submission in question meet
these requirements, despite not implementing the "better design?" This is
the question that I think should be answered.

Thanks