Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 19:17:59
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John Phillips
> <phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The author, the reviewers, and the review manager were also all quite
>> conscious of the existence of GGL. This existence was not considered a show
>> stopper in any of the reviews posted, which is where the Boost community
>> expresses such concerns.
> Obviously! A paper, a presentation and multiple iterations had been
> produced and discussion ensued.
> It is obvious that the GTL author and the reviewer had close ties
It might be implied but it is definitely not obvious, and more importantly,
So for the record I have absolutely no close ties, of any nature, with neither
Intel nor Luke.
> clearly acknowledged in the GTL paper. I assume these were just email
You assume right as Luke already clarified.
> Again, yes, the reviewer is an expert in the field but not in the
> other application domain (GIS)
You must have second guess that from somwhere, but, just for the record, you are
I have expertise in several dommains where geometric computing is applicable:
CAD, GIS, Computer Graphics (which is a quite different domain with
significantly different requirements) and Computer Generated Imaginery (also
> that was of interest to reviewers.
> Otherwise the feedback would not have been so directed to one of the
> libraries vs the other.
Please don't forget that GGL was not readily available when Boost.Polygon was
reviewed, and still not when I was drawing the conclusion for the result.
So there was certainly no contention between libraries *at all*.
-- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk