Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 16:32:40
On 6/2/2015 2:28 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> Sometime during the review process the presentation of what was being
>> reviewed completely changed. A new version of the library was
>> presented using the current Boost directory structure, with a very
>> full documentation set and the link to the tutorial documentation in
>> the original version being reviewed was removed.
>>
>> I am no doubt a bit stodgier than most programmers but this is not
>> acceptable during a Boost review process.
>
> Several people have explicitly mentioned that they have reservations
> about the fact that the library was not presented in its final
> Boost-ready form and that they would have liked to examine, and vote on,
> that final form.
>
> Abel has accommodated their wishes and has done the necessary work to
> present the library in its Boost-ready form. It strikes me as extremely
> unfair to hold that against him. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
The Boost-ready form is what I would like to review but its not only the
Boost-ready form that changed but the fact that the documentation set
changed ( for the better I will add ). But that's not what was offered
for the original review. I don't hold anything against the library
author but I don't think I should be required to approve of this ability
to change a library in the midst of a review so I voted NO. I think it
is going to be really bad, and confusing, to set a precedent by which a
library author in the midst of a review, changes the library being
reviewed for any reason. My vote can be seen as a protest that this was
allowed to happen and has absolutely nothing personal to do with the
library author in question.