Greg Reese wrote:
Anyway, that being said, I hope people would join in the discussion rather than simply forward their reviews and ask for a private discussion through an email address. I think that's not the way the Boost culture works.
Things are not as nefarious as they seem. I was not asking for a private discussion and am happy to have my review made public but was foiled by a technical glitch. (Or perhaps, since this was my first Boost post, it was a user error...) I joined the Boost developers' list and submitted my review to it on Friday the 13th. (Hmm, could this be the problem?) I received an email confirming my submission and saying that my email
[snip]
Please always explicitly state in your review, whether you think the library should be accepted into Boost.
My bad. I answered all of the bulleted questions in the review announcement, but missed this other, more important question. My answer is: yes, GIL should be included in Boost.
If there are questions, I can contacted at: reesegj at muohio.edu Very interesting perspective!
I thought the reviews just went to the authors and was actually trying to help them out by volunteering to answer any questions they had about what I said. I didn't realize the reviews were posted on the list and discussed by the whole community. Now I know.
Again, I apologize for my procedural breaches - I was a Boost-list virgin. I will now keep tabs on this thread for a little while and post responses, this time publicly!
Thank you very much for the clarification. Certainly I misunderstood and I apologize too for that. Your review was very enlightening and informative. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net