From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-30 13:27:23
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:04 AM Thomas Fowlery via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The outcome of the review is presented as a foregone conclusion, with no
> analysis of the actual topics that have been discussed. The review manager
> does not state how the different reviews and issues have weighed in on his
> decision.
Unfortunately I agree. I expect there to be a well written summary of all
the points that were presented by the reviewers, including the negative
ones.
> Meanwhile, the two rejections (and
> some non-review comments) brought up major design questions which haven't
> been addressed by either the review manager or the author(s).
One of the rejections was low-effort and misses the mark in terms of why
libraries are accepted. I assume it was rightly discounted accordingly, yet
this was the opportunity for the review manager to better explain why so
that future reviews may avoid those mistakes.
Thanks