On 18/01/2023 08:34, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
Additionally, stating your knowledge of redis and asio would be helpful for me.
I've used ASIO a lot, and never used Redis.
I vote to REJECT.
If the library could be refactored so that the user-facing interface was more friendly, I would change my vote.
Zach
My opening email didn't state this clearly, but you can also vote to "conditionally accept". That usually means you have to give the author an actionable condition that he has to fulfill to get your yes vote during THIS review.
The way you currently voted means that you might vote differently in a future review. A conditional accept is useful when you want changes, but think another full review is not needed to address your issues.
I am mentioning that, because your reasoning sounds like a conditional accept to me, so I just want to be sure you are aware of that option, since I didn't explicitly state this.
Zach has been on here longer than I have, and has written as many library reviews as I have, so I'm pretty sure if he says reject he means exactly that. Explaining some more: some libraries can be fixed up, even if the fixup list is quite long. Some are fundamentally broken and need rearchitecture, in the reviewer's opinion. The latter would be a reject. I have no opinion on this specific library, but I have had a majority of libraries I proposed here rejected. Niall