Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-13 12:30:03
> When I see a library proposed for review I expect docs, tests and examples, so I can understand the library test it, and lear from the examples.
> It seems extrange to me you propose a library missing these important parts.
> It seems also extrange to me it has been accepted by the review manager and the review wizards.
> I supose all of you have deep reasons to do this way,
It is true that not everything for the library is currently in the
sandbox. However, there is no requirement that the library is ever in
the sandbox, so this is not a reason to deny a review. (If you look at
the past history of reviews you will see that some libraries were never
part of either the sandbox or the vault, but instead were hosted
elsewhere. Remember that the sandbox and vault are for convenience, not
required steps in development.) In the case of this library, because of
the previous work in progress posts and requests for comment from Barend
and collaborators we know that the missing pieces exist on previous
forms and so don't have to worry that nothing is there.
What are the actual requirements for a review request? There aren't
any. A review request is a post by an author saying that there is a
library they want reviewed. Though some authors share the work in
progress before making the request, some others do not.
You are confusing the request for a review from the author with the
actual review of the library. For the actual review to happen there is a
requirement that all the pieces be available to any interested reviewer
(whether through the sandbox or some other source is not constrained),
and the expectation that the review manager has looked at the library
enough to believe that holding a review would not be a waste of the time
of the other members of the list. The review wizards do not separately
check this unless it is requested by the review manager (something that
has not ever happened, to my knowledge).
In this case, Hartmut has volunteered to manage the review. He is an
experienced Boost developer and has managed high quality reviews in the
past so the review wizards trust him to know if the library is ready for
a review before asking for a date. That does not mean that anyone knows
whether the library will pass the review. It just means that the library
and its supporting files are complete enough and of high enough quality
that the discussion will be valuable and there is a reasonable chance
I hope that helps you understand the system more clearly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk