Pavel Vozenilek wrote:

"Jonathan Turkanis" wrote:

[snip]

...

I think the review should be extended. If you do so, I will commit to writing a review, even though I don't know much about FSMs.

I asked Tom. It is likely.

Thanks for interest!

...

I have not read the FSM reviews yet, but unfortunately IMO even if all the reviews are very favorable there simply have not been enough yet to justify accepting a medium sized library. It looks to me like only four people other than you and Andreas have posted on FSM so far.

The FSM was discussed _a lot_ in the past on this mail-list and Usenet so I expected similar feedback now.

Perhaps it could be interpreted: as the library reached mature state where everybody's happy enough.

I hope so. But we should hear from more of the people who participated in the preliminary discussions. As review manager, perhaps you could send emails to the people who participated, and see if you can coax some of them into submitting reviews.

And its not new - for example most of Serialization discussions happened before review. Similarly with multi-index container.

Even so, a large number of people participated in the second review, and there was significant volume of messages. Jonathan

| | "Jonathan Turkanis" wrote: | | [snip] | Perhaps it could be interpreted: as the library reached | mature state where everybody's happy enough. I agree with this interpretation. Personally, I have read the tutorial and tried an example or two, but really I know so little about FSM compared to other reviewers that I feel it would be most presumptious to write a review. Perhaps there are others in the same knowledge state. But I can see the need for FSMs, and I feel the submission meets it, judged mainly on the expert reviewers, however few. Apart from truly general items like filesystem, serialization, reviews of many items are likely to have this problem. Is the solution for many more Boosters (currently in lurk mode), even with only modest knowledge of a particular item, to submit 'reviews' which essentially say: "I am convinced by other more expert reviewers"? Paul Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

David Abrahams wrote:

IIRC, I am still a bit uneasy with the library's use of dynamic dispatch, and if I had the time I would be looking at it more closely. I'm not sure I'll have enough time to give a deep review, though, so it's not really a legit basis for extending the review period.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind an extension past 6th of March, if that's what you need. OTOH, a review period of more than two weeks is without precedent, and I'd hate the library to take up more precious review time than absolutely necessary. Whatever we end up with is fine with me, given that people think it is justified. Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.

Apologies , the whole message was mistaken hit of the send button Keith -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis Sent: 01 March 2005 18:48 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: Re: review of FSM nears to the end - any more reviews? Keith Burton wrote:

...

"Jonathan Turkanis" wrote:

[snip]

...

Perhaps it could be interpreted: as the library reached mature state where everybody's happy enough.

This quote makes it appear as if I made the above statement; in fact it was Pavel. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost