Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Sort library review manager results
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 18:48:45
On 11/26/2014 6:46 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> This is the results from the recent review of the Sort library of Steven
> First I would like to thank all those who made comments during the
> review, whether or not they officially gave a final Yes or No vote to
> whether the Sort library should be accepted as a Boost library. This
> list includes:
> Niall Douglas, Julian Gonggrijp, Phil Endecott, Vladimir Prus, Mathias
> Gaunard, Jeremy Murphy, Peter Dimov, Robert Ramey, Adam Walling, Anthony
> Polukhin, Phil Endecott, Paul Bristow, Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg
> Dupuis Etienne, and Frank Gennari
> If I have missed anyone I do apologize.
> Secondly I would like to thank Steven Ross for patiently answering all
> of the review comments to the best of his ability.
> My tally of Yes and No votes for acceptance are:
> Yes votes (5) :
> Niall Douglas ( conditional ), Julian Gonggrijp ( conditional ),
> Frank Gennari, Phil Endecott, Paul Bristow.
> No votes (3) :
> Vladimir Prus, Adam Walling ( conditional ), Anthony Polukhin
> I believe the condtional Yes vote from Julian Gonggrijp was completely
> met in the discussions of issues with Steven Ross and the conditional
> Yes vote from Niall Douglass was almost completely met in the discussion
> with Steven Ross about the issues mentioned.
> I want to also mention that the conditional No vote by Adam Walling has
> an implied Yes vote to it if the Sort library were one among other sort
> Since my final decision is not entirely based on the Yes and No votes I
> want to adumbrate some of the major issues brought up by the review
> without necessarily focussing on every one of the people who brought
> them up initially, as well as my own reactions to them as Review Manager.
> 1) The first major issue was whether a library whose basic merit lies in
> its algorithm and its speed/space constraints needs better theoretical
> backing. A number of reviewers discussed this after it was brought up. I
> tend to agree with reviewers that while the best theoretical basis is
> always desirable, it is not necessary for a Boost library whose
> empirical evidence can be and has been measured by its implementor and
> can be measured by any user. Furthermore Steven Ross has provided an
> extensive discussion in his documentation, as well as his original
> paper, about the theoretical merits of his technique. While much of this
> discussion is probably beyond the understanding of any but sorting
> experts and afficionados ( I am neither ) enough of it adequately
> explains the basic ideas behind SpreadSort for those who understand and
> have knowledge of basic sorting ideas and popular sorting techniques (
> that's my province ).
> 2) An important issue is the need for the Sorting library to provide
> extensive timing charts/tables comparing SpreadSort to at least
> std::sort ( and possibly other popular mainstream sorts ) with both
> different numbers of sort keys and different initial unsorted
Please ignore as I accidentally hit the Send button too soon. The full
review will appear shortly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk