Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 06:56:19

On 2015-08-27 12:19, Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
> 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.

After all this talk about vendettas and people using this review to take
it out on him, maybe I am a bit sensible.

>
> 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?
Monad at least is in plain sight.

I consider it problematic that the scope of the review is unclear. That
will make it hard to interpret the results.

>
>>
>> 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 would be surprised if I were the only person who feels uneasy when the
author evaluates reviews in this way.
>
> 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?

+1

Just sent my review, btw.