Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-13 17:47:53

Hi,----- Original Message -----
From: "Hartmut Kaiser" <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).

>> > vicente.botet wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Therefore, I would like to request a formal review and the library
>> >>> placed into the review queue. It is put into the Boost.Sandbox:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I supose that the directory
>> has not been commited.
>> >
>> >
>> > The GGL is headers-only library, so the complete library is there.
>> > The libs is a placeholder where we are going to commit tests
>> > and a bunch of examples soon.
>> 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,
> Everything can be looked at in the original SVN where GGL got developed. It
> will be added to the Boost sandbox SVN before the review (actually this
> week), so everybody will be able to see what's reviewed. Even more, this
> library has been presented for preliminary review on this list before and
> we've had lots of discussions already. FWIW, the documentation is still
> available at the old site if you can't wait until it's 'properly' added to
> Boost sandbox SVN.
> Based on this (and certainly rom looking at the library itself) I accepted
> to manage the library review.
> Moreover, Barends email was a request only, not the announcement of the
> actual review (which will happen in November, BTW).

I understand that this was the announcement of the review. It was just a Formal review request as the subject states.

I understand also you and others know that GGL has a specific repository, but not necesarly other people. This shoudl explain you accepted to manage the review.
The single error from my point of view was to give a web pointer with missing doc, test and examples while requesting a formal review. I wanted to say just that. I see now I should say nothing.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at