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?