On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Abel Sinkovics wrote:
Hi Glen,
That is correct. I have not changed the original repository (apart from adding copy-paste friendly versions of the code snippets to the tutorial and fixing a broken URL) since the beginning of the review.
Abel - that's perfect, in my humble opinion. The whole exchange demonstrates that you, as a library author, are not opposed to comply with simple requests from the Boost community for convenience of reviewing/using/testing your library /and/ your original submission is well preserved enough for comparison. There are library authors, like Abel, who are very responsive, and willing to comply with any formality or request in the review process - but when there is contention about some of these formalities, or if some rules are not explicitly documented, it is unfair to punish the library author for it. I believe Abel's complied well with the spirit of the Boost review process, and I like Christophe's response very much. Perhaps, Ron, the formal review documentation on the Boost site can be updated for the benefit of reviewers as much as library authors, to clarify some of these issues. Glen