Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.auc.dk> writes:
|6. Yet, this hasn't undergone any formal review, so some of you might |(with reason) object to its being commited to the CVS. From our point |of view, we have three valid alternatives: | * Boost members agree to have it in CVS without more ado. | * As this is used by Boost.MultiIndex, Boost.Hash is suitable for | fasttrack review. | * This is untolerable and the library should be push_back()'ed to | the review queue. Meanwhile, Boost.Hash should live as an impl | detail of Boost.MultiIndex.
I would prefer a fast-track review. I think we have plenty of room in between reviews. If you need a fast-track review manager, then I don't mid doing so.
Thanks for volunteering! Let's see whether Daniel (who is the author) is OK with this. In case I've got no more comments on (1)-(5) (I'm afraid I won't) I'll commit the multi_index stuff to the CVS, plus Boost.Hash code, without the docs, tests, etc. If the fasttrack review is positive, Daniel will be able to upload the remaining material: if negative, I guess I'll have to move his code to a detail namespace :( Anyone disagrees with this procedure? What's the current backlog for fasttrack reviews? (Daniel, you here?) Thanks, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo