Hi, Andreas Huber-3 wrote:
According to the schedule, John Torjo's Log2 library will be reviewed soon (currently 3rd in the queue). There's another logging proposal by Andrey Semashev (currently 13th in the queue).
It seems to me that these proposals are sufficiently close in functionality that only one of them should be accepted into Boost.
Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to review both libraries in one (longer) formal review?
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber
When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
AFAIK, even if we have a review manager for the review of the John Torjo's library, the library has not been changed since it was rejected. I have never understood why it is on the review schedule. Anyway, I think that we should review a library as soon as the review manager and the author have found a date. Of course compare other libraries covering the same domain are welcome at the functional and performance level. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Shouldn%27t-both-logging-proposals-be-reviewed-in-the-... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.