Bottom Line Up Front: The library is conditionally accepted. Thank you again to everyone who participated in the review. For transparency, the final tally of ACCEPT/CONDITIONAL ACCEPT/REJECT, from both private and public reviews, was 1/5/2. Both rejections and nearly all conditional acceptance conditions revolved around the state of the documentation and naming. I have consolidated these conditions and related discussion on the GitHub issue tracker, rather than reiterating them here. The total number of new issues from the review period is 25. Rainer and Peter Turcan both brought up bugs or additional features for the website. I am working to address those separately with the web devs. This leads us to the singular condition of acceptance being to address the documentation related issues. Since this is a rather subjective requirement, we will be running a mini review of the library documentation in a few weeks. Several of those who conditionally accepted or rejected said they would be willing to look at the library again. This mini review period provides them a good opportunity to do so. I think this second review will give the best possible product for the initial release of Multi in Boost. Stay tuned for those dates. Thank you again for your time and participation in this review. The library is certainly better for it. Matt
On 16 Mar 2026 20:51, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
Bottom Line Up Front: The library is conditionally accepted. Thank you again to everyone who participated in the review.
For transparency, the final tally of ACCEPT/CONDITIONAL ACCEPT/REJECT, from both private and public reviews, was 1/5/2. Both rejections and nearly all conditional acceptance conditions revolved around the state of the documentation and naming. I have consolidated these conditions and related discussion on the GitHub issue tracker, rather than reiterating them here.
The review result should be posted here on the ML, including all conditions that are formally required to be met for the library to get accepted. In particular, this serves as a reference point in future discussions. Please, do this. You can create issues and PRs as a consequence of the review to simplify tracking the progress in getting the conditions fulfilled, but these issues and PRs do not constitute the formal review result.
On Monday, March 16th, 2026 at 7:34 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2026 20:51, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
Bottom Line Up Front: The library is conditionally accepted. Thank you again to everyone who participated in the review.
For transparency, the final tally of ACCEPT/CONDITIONAL ACCEPT/REJECT, from both private and public reviews, was 1/5/2. Both rejections and nearly all conditional acceptance conditions revolved around the state of the documentation and naming. I have consolidated these conditions and related discussion on the GitHub issue tracker, rather than reiterating them here.
The review result should be posted here on the ML, including all conditions that are formally required to be met for the library to get accepted. In particular, this serves as a reference point in future discussions. Please, do this.
You can create issues and PRs as a consequence of the review to simplify tracking the progress in getting the conditions fulfilled, but these issues and PRs do not constitute the formal review result.
I agree, which is why in the next paragraph I have:
This leads us to the singular condition of acceptance being to address the documentation related issues. Since this is a rather subjective requirement, we will be running a mini review of the library documentation in a few weeks.
The conditions and rejections from reviewers were nearly all documentation related and hit many of the sections. These will serve as a guide for improvement, but they are not a punch list to acceptance in this case. The mini review is the better tool for assessing completion of this subjective condition, rather than me unilaterally deciding for example the reference section has been sufficiently improved. Matt
On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:52 AM Matt Borland via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Bottom Line Up Front: The library is conditionally accepted. Thank you again to everyone who participated in the review.
Well... that was abrupt. I was hoping for a nice dinner and pleasant conversation before the main event. I suppose it is infinitely preferable to the review results never being published. Thanks Congrats to everyone who participated :)
participants (3)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Matt Borland -
Vinnie Falco