RE: [boost] Re: Review Wizard Status Report
From: David B. Held David Abrahams wrote:
[...] What is the point of these IDs? It seems like it adds busywork for reviewers and no especially useful information. Now we're talking about making them more complicated...
Maybe they have to do with a nagging feeling that Boost Libraries don't all have a canonical name, and even when it seems like they do, people tend to call them whatever they feel like. Perhaps we should either go with a numerical index (which the DBA in me prefers), or insist that all libraries have a canonical name and that everyone use that name to refer to it (perhaps to make it easier to filter messages containing the name).
There is also the case of a library having multiple reviews, the serialization library comes to mind. Glen Knowles Centor Software Corporation
Glen Knowles <gknowles@Centor.com> writes:
From: David B. Held David Abrahams wrote:
[...] What is the point of these IDs? It seems like it adds busywork for reviewers and no especially useful information. Now we're talking about making them more complicated...
Maybe they have to do with a nagging feeling that Boost Libraries don't all have a canonical name, and even when it seems like they do, people tend to call them whatever they feel like.
?? Can't imagine what you're referring to. I've never had a problem identifying review emails from their title.
Perhaps we should either go with a numerical index (which the DBA in me prefers), or insist that all libraries have a canonical name and that everyone use that name to refer to it (perhaps to make it easier to filter messages containing the name).
There is also the case of a library having multiple reviews, the serialization library comes to mind.
Okay, but when has that ever led to confusion? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
participants (2)
-
David Abrahams -
Glen Knowles