Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> writes:
The library has been updated and the following changes have been made:
You know that the library that's under review needs to remain available and unchanged during the review period, don't you? It's fine to post updates, as long as the original is still accessible through its original URL.
Maybe this should be stated explicitly. The following quote:
"A proposed library should remain stable during the review period; it will just confuse and irritate reviewers if there are numerous changes. It is, however, useful to upload fixes for serious bugs right away, particularly those which prevent reviewers from fully evaluating the library. Post a notice of such fixes on the mailing list."
doesn't make it clear (for me, at least) that the original version has to remain available after a fix has been uploaded. Minor patches without which doing a review would be impeded are OK, but if you're just responding to review commentary and making improvements, that should be done somewhere other than in the original location.
Well, all changes may (in certain circumstances) keep a reviewer from "fully evaluating the library". Some clarification of the guidelines would not be amiss.
In that case you're in the clear. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com