Edward Diener wrote:
Sometime during the review process the presentation of what was being reviewed completely changed. A new version of the library was presented using the current Boost directory structure, with a very full documentation set and the link to the tutorial documentation in the original version being reviewed was removed.
I am no doubt a bit stodgier than most programmers but this is not acceptable during a Boost review process.
Several people have explicitly mentioned that they have reservations about the fact that the library was not presented in its final Boost-ready form and that they would have liked to examine, and vote on, that final form. Abel has accommodated their wishes and has done the necessary work to present the library in its Boost-ready form. It strikes me as extremely unfair to hold that against him. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.