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: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 13:08:43

Barend Gehrels wrote:
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> Hi Luke,
>> 
>> 2009/11/19 Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]>:
>> 
>>> Why would I throw out support for 3/4 of them?  His offer to allow
>>> me to join his project, let him drive design decisions and throw >
>>> away my own concepts hierarchy was not so temping early on and
>>> particularly un-enticing later   
>>> 
>> !> when it came with a threat that he would release his benchmark
>> results during the review of my library
>> !> if I didn't call off my review.
>> 
>> 
>> what you are saying here is pretty fierce. I doubt very much that it
>> is wise to do such statements on the list. From your wording one can
>> get the impression that you have been blackmailed.
>> 
>> I'm worried
>> Joachim
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
> Thanks Joachim, I didn't read this piece yet.
> 
> It is *unbelievable* what Luke's writing here and *completely
> untrue*. I 
> have *never* mailed something like this, and I would never do so. Our
> last communication was on July 9 and ended friendly. Between July 3
> and 
> July 9 we corresponded with 5 mails about the benchmark,  in a
> friendly 
> way; there were several people in the CC, and I helped Luke to find a
> deviation, and Luke suggested improvements for our algorithm. /I've
> never written anything about publishing benchmarks at all./
> 
> I can really not believe what I'm seeing here above.
> 
> I don't understand where this sudden statement comes from. Luke, if
> there are any resentments from the past, I regret that. Please let
> that 
> go, let's work together in the future.

I wasn't so sure about sending that email yesterday.  I thought about leaving it unsent until the morning and re-reading it in the morning to decide whether I should send it, then I just hit send.

I'm sorry that I implied blackmail, I reread the old correspondence and your suggestion that I join your project is much friendlier than my email from yesterday suggests (and the way I remember feeling about it at the time.)  

"Let me also repeat that you're still welcome to join us. We're prepared to add 45 and 90 manhattan geometries. You could implement your algorithms as specializations for those cases. We would form a strong team and having only one geometry library would be much less complicated an stronger chances of acceptance. You might think about this."

I can't find any statement that you planned specificially to release the benchmarks during the review, but this

"The comparison program is in our SVN and, combined with the next preview, as we go to Boost Sandbox, it will automatically be publicly available such that they can reproduced by everyone."

I guess I remember more clearly the feeling of being cornered by your benchmark results which I had no way to reproduce for myself from an algorithm that I didn't know how it worked when the review of my library was close.  I went out of my way to be positive and friendly in my response, but I was concerned that your benchmark results would kill my library's chances in review, which they very nearly did.  I agree that your intention was not blackmail, but I felt blackmailed.

I'll do my best to let these feeling from the past go, as you say.  I've wanted to work together from the beginning.  Early on it was challenging because we were both learning and experimenting with syntax for doing what we wanted.  Now there are still some semantic differences that prevent merging (as well as syntactic differences.)  I think we should look at what is required for our libraries to interoperate first, then we can create a base that is common to both.

Sorry again, I'll try to keep discussion technical and focus on achiving what is in everyone's best interests,
Luke