Re: [boost] Boost.Fit review Mars 3-20 result

18 May 2016

      Le 18/05/2016 à 10:29, Rob Stewart a écrit :
...
On May 18, 2016 12:52:06 AM EDT, Paul Fultz II  wrote:
...
...
On May 17, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Robert Ramey  wrote:
On 4/3/16 7:36 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
...
The review of the proposed Boost.Fit library ended on Mars 20, 2016.
The verdict is:
Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
There were too much concerns about the documentation and what
exactly
this library is proposing and not enough reviews commenting the
design,
code and test for each one of the proposed functions.
<snip>
Given the text I snipped, I don't see how one could characterize the
review result as "Conditionally Accepted"
What is this suppossed to mean exactly.  That it should be integrated
into boost as soon as it meets some list of conditions? What are these?
Who determines when they are met.  I'd feel much more comfortable with
something like
The library is rejected.
You did not take part of the review of the library and are not the
review manager for it.
Those points don't mean he can't question the meaning of Vicente's phrasing.
...
There were 6 votes for the library and 2 votes to reject. There were
only two votes for conditional acceptance from Zach Laine and Louis
Dionne. Talking to them personally, they did not intend for the library
to be resubmitted(they listed there conditions for acceptance in the
review).
Vicente will clarify his intent, but his post was somewhat ambiguous. Despite the intent of the reviewers, he could, as the Review Manager, reject the library and call for a new review after changes. He could, instead, list conditions you must meet to satisfy a conditional acceptance, but that's not certain at this point.
Hi all, and sorry for not have my home work done yet.

Robert, Rob, you are right that I could have rejected the library but 
I've preferred to accept it subject to a new review. The main reason is 
that I believe that this library would be useful for the C++ Boost 
community. It's not ready yet, but the features the library proposes are 
useful.

Rob, the conditions will not be for conditional acceptance, but for 
having a new review. Sorry if this was not clear. with my sentence
...
Conditional acceptance (a new review is needed)
Unfortunately I've no time to do the report of the modifications that 
will be needed before the new review. The deadline for Oulu C++ standard 
committee is end of this month and I have some papers to finish.

Please, be patient,

Vicente