Robert, Daniel I'm sorry but, from which peer review process are you talking about? The review of the acceptation of a new library or ...
That's what I'm referring to.
The goal of a review been to ensure quality., you don't think that every major evolution of a Boost library should have its own mini-review?
I can see the motivation for such a proposal. But honestly I don't think that the problem is so large and/or so frequent that it warrents so much effort to avoid. Sometimes this is going to happen and I'm going to feel that I was snookered. It's a fact of life that I just have to accept and work around it. I don't think it can be prevented, all I can do is to make the library authors sorry they did it. Maybe that diminishes future occurences. Robert Ramey