Hi Patrick, Patrick Horgan wrote:
Barend Gehrels wrote:
We have never clarified this point until now, and herewith we want to, in the broader context of extensions (more reviewers mentioned extensions).
Theoretically, options for extensions are: 1) no review at all 2) review within osgeo.org/ggl 3) fast track review within Boost 4) formal review within Boost
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but for libraries already accepted into boost, don't the library maintainers use their own judgment about extensions which don't break existing code? I'm always seeing people announce new things to come, and while they ask for code reviews, it's not an acceptance review.
That is true and we mentioned this option. But for extensions, it is sometimes different, also because they can be written not by the library maintainers, but by completely other people. Therefore we proposed this system, and the GIL-team apparently thinks in the same line. Regards, Barend