Re: [safe_numerics] needs a mini-review

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-09 15:34:10

pt., 9 paź 2020 o 17:22 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> On 10/8/20 9:28 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> > czw., 8 paź 2020 o 19:18 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >>
> >> As author of two boost libraries, I can offer a little perspective.
> >>
> >> My second offering is the safe numerics library. It had some loose ends
> >> but was considered sufficiently implemented to accept. And so it was.
> >> Apparently, it was not that interesting for enough people to craft
> >> objections to.  WHat happened next?
> >>
> >> You guessed it.  cleaning up the "loose ends", unraveled the whole
> >> library implementation.  Even worse, it impacted that type requirements
> >> (concepts) which the library specified.  It was almost like starting
> >> from scratch again. About the only thing left unscathed was the
> >> documentation. When I got it back together, I merged into boost
> >> development branch.  .... and the it is.  No one objected to this.  In
> >> fact, no one even noticed. Did I do the right thing? Should I have asked
> >> for another review?  You decide.  I'm wondering if it got accepted in
> >> large part due the documentation.  As usual, I don't have point here -
> >> just like to keep the pot boiling.
> >>
> >
> > The review result of Safe Numerics library was that it is conditionally
> > accepted:
> > https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2017/03/233511.php
> >
> > My understanding of the process is that as the next steps:
> > 1. The author applies the indicated conditions and reports readiness for
> a
> > mini-review.
> > 2. A mini-review is scheduled. Its purpose is to determine if the
> > conditions have been satisfied
> > 3. If the review passes, the author has green light to release their
> > library as part of Boost libraries.
>
> Of course this is the question at hand right now.  If there are
> conditions, how should the be enforced?  In many/most cases the
> conditions are pretty simple and straight forward so one has confidence
> that the author will simply make the updates and check in the library.
> I believe that this is the most common case.
>
> But sometimes, even though the conditions might seem straight forward,
> implementing them might end up being a lot more work than first meets
> the eye.  In the case of safe numerics, I did manage (in my personal
> estimation) to implement all the stated conditions, but the effort
> required to do so was far beyond what I had anticipated.  I also ended
> up refining ideas which were actually incorrect but never detected/noted
> in the review.  I fixed that stuff also.
>
> So to my mind, the system worked well and as intended.
>
> a) I made the prototype library including documentation and carefully
> specified API
> b) It got reviewed
> c) It got accepted subject to some conditions
> d) I re-implemented it to fulfill all the conditions, fix discovered
> mistakes, fill in missing pieces.
> f) checked it in.
>
> The "missing step" would be e) - get a mini-review.  Honestly this just
> never occurred to me.  I had included all the conditions as issues on
> github and documented my changes there so I'm pretty confident that I
> addressed them all.  I probably should have asked you to verify/certify
> that the conditions were met.  But it didn't occur to me.
>
> In short, I'm arguing that a "mini-review" is generally not necessary
> and I don't think it's documented as as a step in the boost "process".
>

Yes, you are correct. Our policy (
https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html) says:

If a review results in conditions on acceptance, the review manager may
> request a Mini-Review to determine if the conditions have been met. The
> Mini-Review is usually conducted by the same review manager.
>

The review manager (that is, me) never requested a mini-review, so you were
under no obligation to undergo one. My apologies for claiming the opposite.
I somehow believed that declaring a conditional acceptance implies a
request for a mini-review, but this is not the case.

> >
> > I read your message as saying that safe_numerics is ready for a
> > mini-review. Is that correct?
> >
> In this particular case, I'd be happy to respond to anyone who wants to
> subject the current version of the safe numerics library to a
> mini-review.  In general, I love talking about my stuff.
>

In that case, I commit to doing a private mini-review of safe_numerics :)

Regards,
&rzej;

> > Regards,
> > &rzej;
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>