Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 14:32:22
"John Phillips" <phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:hdt4vf$ufm$1_at_ger.gmane.org...
> As for scheduling a joint review: That was tried with the Thread Pool
> libraries and I heard many comments from people who were not happy
> reviewing two at once and no one who was happy. This included the review
> manager, the library authors and some of the reviewers.
Actually, I don't care much how the review periods are scheduled (lib1
first, lib2 first or joint), but I still think we should somehow ensure that
we end up with at most one logging library. I don't see a better way than
giving the reviewers only three choices (accept lib 1, accept lib 2, reject
both) instead of four. For the unlikely case of a draw a special procedure
could be put in place.
Thoughts?
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.