From: Moore, Paul (paul.moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-17 05:01:22
From: Peter Dimov
> From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> [...]
>> If all those safeguards are in place, do you still think there is too
much
>> danger the guidelines will be seen as requirements?
>
> It all comes down to:
>
> If I submit a library to boost, and this library hasn't even heard of the
> boost guidelines,
>
> 1. Will this be a reason for rejection?
> 2. Will this generate several hundred of review comments along the lines
of
> "Why don't you follow guideline x.y?"
And a comment from someone who already has an accepted library:
1. Will rationa be expected to change to conform?
2. Will I be expected to do the work?
3. Which bits of the document are mandatory vs optional? (Yes, I did read
the document - admittedly only quickly - and no, it isn't clear).
I vote for rejection - not because of any particular failings, but because I
don't see the point. (As someone else pointed out, things would be different
if library maintenance was done by the group, rather than by individuals).
Paul.