On May 18, 2016 2:18:16 PM EDT, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
On May 18, 2016 12:52:06 AM EDT, Paul Fultz II <pfultz2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 17, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote: On 4/3/16 7:36 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
The review of the proposed Boost.Fit library ended on Mars 20,
The verdict is:
Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
Given the text I snipped, I don't see how one could characterize
Le 18/05/2016 à 10:29, Rob Stewart a écrit : 2016. the
review result as "Conditionally Accepted" Vicente will clarify his intent, but his post was somewhat ambiguous.
Robert, Rob, you are right that I could have rejected the library but I've preferred to accept it subject to a new review.
That still seems confusing. If it needs a new, full review, in what way was it accepted? I presume you mean to suggest that you think it's close to acceptable, and you want to encourage Paul to finish the effort, but can't you couch a rejection in those terms? IOW, I understand you to be saying, "While the library will be a powerful and useful tool, it is not yet ready for Boost to accept. I very much want Paul to make the changes that have been suggested, and which he had accepted, and to resubmit his library in the near future. Nevertheless, I must reject the library in its present form." Does that not convey your intent well, including encouraging Paul to finish the task, without being contradictory like your formulation? ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)