Oliver Kowalke-2 wrote:
Am 27.12.2010 21:05, schrieb Vladimir Prus:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
4. Change the review process instead from a submission->review->inclusion process that's rigidly scheduled to one that is less rigid and is more fluid.
I think that the current review process is actually good.
How much libs are in the review queue and how long are they waiting for a review (my libs are waiting for more than one year)?
Oliver, your first version of ThreadPool could be reviewed more than a year ago: Now that all your libs depend on Boost.Atomic, which is not yet in the reveiw schedule, your libs are blocked by dependencies and can not be reviewed, or am I missing something?
The review process is very slow and could be much faster (at least for me).
I don't think the review process is slow. The major issue for ñost of them i sthat the review manager is missing. I would like to know how many libs in the list are really ready for review. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Respecting-a-projects-toolchain-decisions... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.