Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 06:19:00
Den 27-08-2015 kl. 10:31 skrev Roland Bock:
> On 2015-08-27 08:28, Gavin Lambert wrote:
>> 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.
> Thanks, Gavin. That is a very friendly interpretation.
Actually, I am very surprised that anyone interpreted it differently.
And maybe you are
> right. But even now, reading that statement from Niall again, I feel
> quite uneasy:
> I intend to put items #1 and #2 in my review among other things. I am
> not happy about being told that this is "utterly useless".
However, if they were hidden implementation details, you wouldn't care?
> The current situation, time constraints and my current level of
> knowledge prevent me from finding critical flaws. In a potential future
> review, the situation will be different, as might my knowledge.
> Thus, I might find a critical flaw later on. I don't know. Maybe not. It
> is not my goal. But anyway, if I do, Niall is " going to be very upset
> with [me] indeed". Not cool.
Agreed to that point.
> I agree with the idea of a group peer review of course. But with his
> last mail, Niall basically introduced a metric to decide which reviews
> are valid and which are not. I do not think that the author of a library
> under review is in the position to do that.
I don't think he did. He did not say that the first two metrics were
invalid. He said they should not be reason *in themselves* for
rejection. Obviously, that's not his call, I agree.
> Things would be totally different if this were a pre-review or any other
> informal discussion about AFIO. In that case, I would agree with Niall
> immediately in asking for concrete details instead of potential formal
> reasons for rejection.
> But since this is a formal review, I object to Niall trying to install a
> bias with statements like in his last mail.
Again, I think you misread him.
I'm wondering at this point, whether the review shouldn't change status
to a pre-review. Actual acceptance - without reservations - seems very
unlikely at present, and seeing this as a pre-review might garner Niall
the kind of feedback he is hoping for. Is the review manager present?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk