On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:42 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
Once again, said better than I ever could.
Thanks! But I'm just restating things I learn from this list... and from a few colleagues... and a few teachers along the way. ;-)
If I were to vote, I think I would feel obliged to vote no despite my implicit trust in Joel's abilities and sense of responsibility that tells me it'll probably turn out alright. It's frustrating that we've managed to get ourselves in this situation, but I don't think we should ever be reviewing code that isn't what the author intends to release.
I feel comfortable with Eric's compromise. And even if it's premature, some good things have come out of this current review... which is to say that it can be good to have multiple reviews. I for one would be even more confident in a library that had been hammered out through multiple review/rejection cycles before finally being accepted. So, it wouldn't be bad if Boost accepted fewer libraries after the first review, when multiple reviews are merited, of course. As for Phoenix, whether the second review comes as a result of rejection in the first or as a condition of acceptance in the first, either way, it will have the benefit of a final review before it's released, which is the important thing. Daniel Walker