Are we reviewing both libraries at once?
That is my understanding. However, at this point, until persuaded otherwise, I'm inclined to suggest to both authors that they should find a way to work together and issue a joint release. I've looked at both libraries and the differences are subtle. Maybe we just need to persuade them that it would not diminish their work in any way if they were to submit a joint release. As both submissions are of high quality, I would not want to discourage either author. It would also seem to me that the logging library proposals have the same problem. It would be my hope that we could get the authors of the various logging library proposals to work together and issue a joint release as well. One could dream.
on Wed Dec 31 2008, "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Are we reviewing both libraries at once?
That is my understanding.
As a review wizard, isn't that decision in part up to you?
However, at this point, until persuaded otherwise, I'm inclined to suggest to both authors that they should find a way to work together and issue a joint release.
I am inclined the same way, but if they're going to do that, we should not use a formal review to sort out any large-scale decisions that they can make between them.
I've looked at both libraries and the differences are subtle. Maybe we just need to persuade them that it would not diminish their work in any way if they were to submit a joint release. As both submissions are of high quality, I would not want to discourage either author.
It would also seem to me that the logging library proposals have the same problem. It would be my hope that we could get the authors of the various logging library proposals to work together and issue a joint release as well.
Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed Dec 31 2008, "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Are we reviewing both libraries at once? That is my understanding.
As a review wizard, isn't that decision in part up to you?
However, at this point, until persuaded otherwise, I'm inclined to suggest to both authors that they should find a way to work together and issue a joint release.
I am inclined the same way, but if they're going to do that, we should not use a formal review to sort out any large-scale decisions that they can make between them.
I've looked at both libraries and the differences are subtle. Maybe we just need to persuade them that it would not diminish their work in any way if they were to submit a joint release. As both submissions are of high quality, I would not want to discourage either author.
It would also seem to me that the logging library proposals have the same problem. It would be my hope that we could get the authors of the various logging library proposals to work together and issue a joint release as well.
Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz?
The choice to do these together came from a discussion on the list when they were submitted. Since Anthony's submission is an implementation of the proposal for the standard, his interface is fixed for him, and the thought from the discussion was we should at least look at what the standard is adding. Braddock's submission differs somewhat, and people wanted a chance to have a boost library that was different from the proposal, if it proved superior. Sorry if you missed out on that, but it was several months ago. Ron and I just went with the desires of those who commented. BTW: After long and honorable service, Tom stepped down as a review wizard a bit more than a year ago. I'm sure he would have plenty to offer if he wanted it back, but as far as I know, he hasn't asked to be re-appointed. John
on Thu Jan 01 2009, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz?
The choice to do these together came from a discussion on the list when they were submitted. Since Anthony's submission is an implementation of the proposal for the standard, his interface is fixed for him, and the thought from the discussion was we should at least look at what the standard is adding. Braddock's submission differs somewhat, and people wanted a chance to have a boost library that was different from the proposal, if it proved superior.
Sorry if you missed out on that, but it was several months ago. Ron and I just went with the desires of those who commented.
BTW: After long and honorable service, Tom stepped down as a review wizard a bit more than a year ago. I'm sure he would have plenty to offer if he wanted it back, but as far as I know, he hasn't asked to be re-appointed.
Sorry to have lost track of all this a bit. Regardless, it seems like this has potential for a great deal of confusion and I was wondering if the actual review wizards can do anything more to make it go smoothly. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (3)
-
David Abrahams -
John Phillips -
Tom Brinkman