Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-13 18:15:58

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Phillips" <phillips_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).

> 
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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,
>> Best,
>> Vicente
> 
>   Vicente,
> 
>   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.

I understand completly your concern and want to recall however that I have never requested that the library should be on the sandbox. It was Barent that give the pointer to the saanbox for its library, not me.
 
>   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.

It seems to me that the work to be reviewed must be signaled on the formal review request, isn't it?
 
>   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).

No. I don't think I'm confusing  anything. I was aware that this was just a Formal Review Request.
As the review wizard adds the library on the review schedule with the pointer to the library to review, it seems to me that a short check on the contents of the given pointer should avoid posts from the Boost community requesting where the doc can be obtained and things like that.

>   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 
> for passage.

I have no doubt of the high quality of the work Harmunt does, much more the oposite I recognize it. 

>   I hope that helps you understand the system more clearly.

I think I understand how the system works. And I know I have a lot of things to learm from this list, as for example, what is the good way to signal something is missing or wrong. I will try to do better next time :)

I hope this will help you to understand what was my initial concern: Should we accept a formal review request when there is no doc, no test and no examples?

Best regards,
Vicente