Maybe some "release canditates" before the actual final release would give users a chance to see what will be in the following version, and if it is the case, make some suggestions like this one with date_time.
> > It seems to me that these observations at this stage highlight a > > weakness of the current review process. Until code gets Boost > > acceptance status, too few are prepared to really use it in anger on > > real projects, and only then do lots of 'issues' start to surface. > > But by then, changes cause grief to existing users, so there is a > > reluctance to 'improve' things like naming. > > > > Do we need a 'still may be subject to significant change' status to > > distinguish from a 'pretty much tried and tested' status? > > Maybe review managers should do an assessment of how much scrutiny > has been applied, and solicit a closer inspection. I know I'd have > found most of these had I participated in the date_time review. > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
