Hi, I can speak about string_algo only. This library has been reviewed. I'm planing ot ask for addition to CVS soon. Some minor issues has to be resolved, but it would not take too long On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:17:57AM +0100, Dr. Franz Fehringer wrote:

Hello,

What is the status of the following projects?

- string_algo - config file and command line - dynamic_any

Are they already reviewed and if so, will they be included in the CVS repository?

Greetings

Franz

...

Hi,

Following is a draft of the list of outstanding reviews. It's perfectly possible that I missed a request or messed up lib or author names.

Request Date / Name / Author / Review Manager

2003-09-10 / Indexed Set / Joaquín M López Mu?oz / (Pavel Vozenilek) 2003-09-16 / Assignment / Thorsten Ottosen 2003-09-28 / Container Traits / Thorsten Ottosen 2003-10-03 / Tribool / Douglas Gregor 2003-11-27 / More IO / Daryle Walker 2003-11-28 / Iostreams / Jonathan Turkanis / 2003-11-28 / Output Formatters / Reece Dunn 2003-12-22 / Pointer Containers / Thorsten Ottosen 2004-01-17 / Named Params / David Abrahams Daniel Wallin 2004-01-25 / Wave / Hartmut Kaiser /

Could those involved please check and mail corrections to me directly.

The website will be updated shortly. Almost all of the libs don't have a review manager assigned, so I am looking for review managers as well. Anybody who is are interested in being review manager for any of these libraries can contact me directly.

Thanks

Thomas

Boost Review Wizard

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Dr. Franz Fehringer wrote:

Hello,

What is the status of the following projects?

- string_algo - config file and command line - dynamic_any

Are they already reviewed and if so, will they be included in the CVS repository?

And then there's the minmax algorithm that apparently was accepted more than a year ago but is still not in the CVS? Also I don't think dynamic_any has asked for formal review yet. // Fredrik Blomqvist

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:23:55 +1100, Matthew Hurd wrote

I think the planned changes to boost::thread for this release will need a review.

I think you should make this an informal review request to the list. Based on a frequency of about 1 review per month you won't get on the formal review slate this year. I don't think we want to wait that long... Jeff

On Behalf Of Jeff Garland Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Formal review queue

I don't think we want to wait that long...

Yes. Too true. Matt Hurd.

On Behalf Of Michael Glassford Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Formal review queue

Were there any changes that particularly concern you? I'm not too concerned about much and most things should be resolvable with a little email conversation via the list.

Trivia like the name of rw_mutex, ensuring the orthogonality of the interface, making sure a little boolean conversion sneaks in for a lock. Things like that. I'm not clever enough to get beyond trivia... Maybe splitting boost::thread into separate namespaces. Fundamentally mutexes, locks and some other things might have nothing to do with threads, the thread effect might be implicit, but another namespace also seems overkill. I worry that concurrency and synchronisation do not mean explicit threading. It does raise the issue of the size and scale of library changes as it seems that library approval indicates author approval to make future changes and though this seems to have worked very well so far, it will fail at some stage. Nothing lasts for ever (homily about my extraordinary wife omitted). I think you, Mr Michael G, is doing a lovely job of tackling boost::thread and I do appreciate your efforts. Regards, Matt Hurd.

"Pavol Droba" <droba@topmail.sk> wrote

I cannot see the cyclic buffer? As far as I remember, there was a review request for this.

circular_buffer is probably the oldest one. /Pavel

"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message: <review queue snipped> Wow, this is scary. We have an awful lot of work that is piling up. On top of that, the fcpp review is awfully quiet... I believe Robert Ramey might have asked for a second review of serialization, although I can't find it in the mail archive at the moment. If I'm correct, maybe that review should be given special priority over some of the new libs, or a shortened re-review process? Robert Ramey requested a review on Jan 23 of this year. I thought I had seen a review request for serialization last fall, but I don't see it in my saved messages. Anyway, as the author of one of the above libraries, I'd be happy to let serialization go first. I know a lot of people (including me) are looking forward to it. Jonathan

"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:usmgxe9a2.fsf@boost-consulting.com...

Jonathan,

Please use standard quoting so we can tell which parts of the

posting

are yours and which are Jeff's

Sorry. Occasionally my newsreader forgets to put in the >'s. Usually I catch it before sending. Jonathan