"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uu0o0641j.fsf@boost-consulting.com... "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" <joaquin@tid.es> wrote in message news:421D9494.A06BA029@tid.es...
|As for BoostUnordered, I really don't think it qualifies for fasttrack |review (see the requirements at |http://boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Fast-Track).
yeah, that definition does not take into account things in the tr that are not in boost.
I can't see any good reason this should not be a fast-track review.
| Fast track reviews were supposed to be reserved for components that | are already in use as an implementation detail by one or more boost | libraries, and that we now want to make publicly-accessible. If we | are going to change that policy, we ought to be very clear about _why_ | we're doing that, and just what the new policy should be. I think tr components should be allowed special status. What's the point in putting tr components through a normal review, when there can be no interface changes? If the definition of fast-track review is not suitable for tr components, then let us call it a tr review. The important aspect of such a review is that it should be fast. -Thorsten