Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:00:38 -0700, tom brinkman wrote
Tom --
A couple thoughts.
1) The review schedule is too aggressive. One week per review with no breaks is going to kill us and not give enough time for complete reviews. 1.5 weeks with .5 weeks in-between is more doable. This also gives some buffer for review run-overs. The current week is a reasonable exception because we have 2 libraries that overlap the same area.
2) We might need a break to finish the release, so hopefully there is some flexibility in the schedule.
3) I'm guessing boost::geometry2d isn't really under development...
4) These periodic reports are great -- keep up the good work!
Jeff
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Ok. I'll be less aggressive with the scheduling. The time schedule that you suggested is good rule of thumb, thank you. I'll leave it up to the review managers of the individual libraries to change the review dates, as they deem appropriate.