The precedent for handling this is very well understood.
I don't if its that well understood as their seems to be some disagreement.
If during the early part of review it becomes obvious Rejection votes are occurring due to presentation problems, the precedent is to withdraw the library from review, make the fixes, and start the review again with the fixed edition.
I think that is a huge waste of everyone's time for something as trivial as moving folders around.
I think peer reviews are very like academic paper peer reviews:
Except most of the time, its a volunteer effort, so I think its important to be respectful of everyone's time.
Not submitting a library in the correct directory structure is guaranteed to create problems for some reviewers, and is easily predicted before a review begins. Lack of CI testing is another. This is why I wrote up that Best Practices Handbook so for C++ 11/14 libraries we can hopefully get more of the boxes preticked in the future before reviews of C++ 11/14 libraries begin.
Perhaps Boost could agree on some minimum list of requirements for a library before it goes into review, but I doubt it will be same in your Best Practices Handbook. However, having some official list can help make this clearer in the future. Paul -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-announce-metaparse-Review-period-st... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.