vicente.botet wrote:
Therefore, I would like to request a formal review and the library placed into the review queue. It is put into the Boost.Sandbox: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/ggl/formal_review_request
I supose that the directory https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/ggl/formal_review_request/libs/ has not been commited.
The GGL is headers-only library, so the complete library is there. The libs is a placeholder where we are going to commit tests and a bunch of examples soon.
When I see a library proposed for review I expect docs, tests and examples, so I can understand the library test it, and lear from the examples. It seems extrange to me you propose a library missing these important parts. It seems also extrange to me it has been accepted by the review manager and the review wizards.
I supose all of you have deep reasons to do this way,
Everything can be looked at in the original SVN where GGL got developed. It will be added to the Boost sandbox SVN before the review (actually this week), so everybody will be able to see what's reviewed. Even more, this library has been presented for preliminary review on this list before and we've had lots of discussions already. FWIW, the documentation is still available at the old site if you can't wait until it's 'properly' added to Boost sandbox SVN. Based on this (and certainly rom looking at the library itself) I accepted to manage the library review. Moreover, Barends email was a request only, not the announcement of the actual review (which will happen in November, BTW). Regards Hartmut ------------------- Meet me at BoostCon http://boostcon.com