Le 05/09/15 16:27, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
<vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Le 04/09/15 20:37, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
<vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Please could you recall us what "not in the present form" meant as a
result
of the review and what has been done to overcome these issues?

http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2014/01/0393.php

I have not yet tried to address those point by point.

I don't understand then why are we doing the mini review now, before you
check that any point has at least tried to be addressed.

Sorry. How about these points:

Performance: Oliver has not only worked to improve performance, he has
included and documented performance tests you can run on your own
hardware.

Great, I will check.
See below.

Documentation: The documentation now contains several new sections
explaining how to use the library for interesting/common use cases.
New examples are presented and documented.

See below.

API: The API has been aligned more closely with std::thread. C++14 is
not only supported but required. Move-only callables are supported.
Variadic parameters are supported. std::chrono is more generically
supported. Channels now support value_pop(). fiber_group has been
dropped. Migrating fibers between threads has been dropped.

See below.

That said, of course, it is up to each reviewer to state for him- or
herself whether s/he believes that the Fiber library should become
part of Boost. In particular, regardless of what Oliver or I might
synopsize, it is up to each previous reviewer to decide whether his
January 2014 objections have been addressed.

To be clear, I believe that by respect to the reviewers you should take the review summary you wrote and add a comment for each point.

Best,
Vicente