On 6/2/2015 4:49 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
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.
I understand where you're coming from, but (1) the changes (in directory structure, namespace and identifier naming) were done in response to reviewers' requests and not on a whim, and (2) it takes years for a library's review to be scheduled. We cannot afford to tell library authors "do please wait another three years because you made changes which were requested of you during the review."
Nobody is going to make a library wait for more than a month or two if the library is deemed not presentable enough in its current form to be reviewed. Its not like the review schedule is actually so filled with exciting reviews that anybody has to wait. The reason for waits is always that a review manager hasn't been found. And since a review manager already exists for a library being reviewed it is hardly conceivable that a re-review will not occur in the very near future.