Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 02:28:58
On 27/08/2015 17:40, Roland Bock wrote:
>> Categories 1 and 2 are utterly useless to me. I appreciate the
>> motives and where they are coming from, but let me be clear in
>> return: if I bring AFIO back in twelve months time after lots more
>> work, and those same people then say the design is fundamentally
>> flawed for reasons X, Y and Z and should be rejected, I am going to
>> be very upset with them indeed. I think anyone would understand where
>> I would be coming from in that response.
> So basically you are saying that anyone who votes against your library
> for reasons 1 or 2 has no right to vote against it ever again, and you
> will go to virtual war if they do?
No, he's saying that while you're perfectly entitled to say the things
in #1 or #2 if that's how you feel, he would prefer that you not just
stop there, but also make comments from categories #3 and #4 as well.
ie. don't use #1 or #2 as a justification to completely refuse to review
the library in depth, but instead try to find other things "wrong" with
it right now, so that they can be addressed before the next review,
instead of first being raised *only then*.
That's an ideal, of course, and people have limited time and may miss
things (particularly if docs are incomplete or obscure -- but then
*that* should be raised as an issue). And different people will spot
different things, which is the whole point of a group peer review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk