Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale

Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 13:01:01

John Phillips wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>> The community objective is to get a generic library were multiple
>> authors can eventually contribute their algorithms, like Boost BGL or
>> the competing CGAL. This situation is one of the cases were
>> cooperating is justified and worthwhile for everybody.
>
>    I don't recall a single reviewer stating the ability of multiple 
> authors to contribute algorithms as an objective for them. I may be 
> forgetting something, so please point me to it in the archives if so. If 
> not, then I do not consider this a community objective. Historically, I 
> see no evidence for it as a standard Boost concern, either. Again, 
> please correct me if I'm missing something.

I agree that this openness to contributions is not something that often 
happens in Boost libraries, but for the record I would personally like 
the geometry efforts to have that sort of focus so that I can 
contribute algorithms.  I believe that I expressed this long ago during 
one of the numerous "bike shed" point concept discussions; I may not 
have mentioned it explicitly in my Polygon and GGL reviews but I am 
flagging it now.

>    In the Polygon review, 4 people said no and gave their reasons for 
> saying so. 6 people said yes, and also gave their reasons. The review 
> manager, who is well versed in the technical issues of the library 
> weighed the strength of the different arguments and found the yes 
> arguments not only more numerous, but also more persuasive than the no 
> arguments. He proceeded to address the no arguments in the review result 
> and explain why he did not find them persuasive.

Here is an extract from my "No" review to Boost.Polygon:

   " As I will explain in detail below, my complaints are mainly
     things like excessive warnings and odd misfeatures in the
     interface.  These are all things that could be fixed, and
     they perhaps only indicate that the library has arrived a
     little prematurely.  Based only on these issues my verdict
     would be that that the library could be accepted after some
     revisions.  But we must also look at the bigger picture, i.e.
     the existence of other competing libraries "in the wings".

     ...

   " In view of all this, I suggest that this library should be
     rejected for now.  This will tell Barend that he still has
     an opportunity to present his library for review, and that
     it will be considered on a level playing field.  If Barend's
     library is reviewed and found to be more complete, more
     performant and at least as usable as this library, then it
     should be accepted.  On the other hand, if Barend's library
     is found to be deficient in some way (or is not submitted
     for review), then Luke will have an opportunity to resubmit
     an updated version of this library, which I anticipate should
     be accepted. "

In the review result announcement, Fernando listed many of my minor 
complaints about the library but did not address this suggestion, or 
the existence of GGL "in the wings", at all.

Regards,  Phil.