Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 20:55:23
On 27 Aug 2015 at 7:40, 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?
It was you who brought up "virtual war" by interpreting my statement
this way. I said I would be very upset with people who choose to
actively refuse to review this library now on a point of principle
and in twelve months time then find fundamental design flaws in it
because, well anybody would be.
> My review will fall in categories 1, 2 and 3 (plus some additional
> ones). And because I do not have unlimited time on my hand, I simply
> cannot invest the time to find fundamental flaws. Doing that would
> require me to basically rectify the issues at least on my machine and
> then do the actual review. That is impossible.
I don't know where you are getting this from. Nobody asked you to
rewrite code. Nobody even asked you personally to participate in this
> > Category 3 has been an eye opener to put it mildly. I don't
> > personally think severely flawed documentation is a reason to
> > outright reject though. I do think that insufficient documentation is
> > a reason to reject, but nobody can claim AFIO isn't well documented,
> Again, stop pressurizing, please! I do claim that.
> How do you expect to get a reasonable review if you basically state as a
> fact that bad reviews on certain aspects are invalid by definition?
I am allowed to have an opinion on how the review is going, which I
shared. I don't think doing that is inappropriate. I stated that AFIO
documentation has more detail than you could ever need on parts most
people don't need nor want. It has insufficient detail on the parts
people actually do need and want.
Does this mean AFIO is well documented or not? I claimed and do claim
yes. It's well documented on all the wrong things, that's all. I
didn't know that till this week.
> I feel you. And pretty much everybody here, to, I guess. But these
> constant hints on how hard it was and continues to be and how every
> additional hour hurts immensely? Please let go of that. This is adding
> pressure for the reviewers, too. Because if you worked that hard for
> such a long time under those circumstances, you have to be on the brink.
> Any negative review has to be devastating.
You appear to have a personal bone to pick. I would also worry less
about whether I am "on the brink" or whether I would be "devastated",
and more about whether any review you write was fair and impartial.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk