-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a review. For the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I had only studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a list of what I considered to be shortcomings of the library.
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed; however, I simply didn't have sufficient time to devote to the library. [Brian Braatz Writes:]
What are the expectations here? I find myself in this spot frequently. I see something up for review, and it ALWAYS happens at the worst time for me. I look at it, but I tend to not say much unless I can REALLY devote the time needed to give the library the proper amount of review time. There might be "no answer" to the expectations questions. But I would be curious how others feel about this. I.e. If I only have an hour or two to look at something- is it still useful for me to submit a review? Part of the problem I have is an enormous respect for what a boost library is. It is not something one slaps together just to get their name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go "Wow". if it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost. But if I cannot devote the time needed to review something DEEPLY, I feel it is somewhat disrespectful for me to participate. Do you guys think I am wrong to feel this way? Or do you find the opinions of a quick review valuable? Brian
"Brian Braatz" <brianb@rmtg.com> writes:
boost-bounces@lists.boost.org wrote:
On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis
I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a review. For the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I had only studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a list of what I considered to be shortcomings of the library.
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed;
Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to come up with a good design.
however, I simply didn't have sufficient time to devote to the library.
[Brian Braatz Writes:]
What are the expectations here? I find myself in this spot frequently. I see something up for review, and it ALWAYS happens at the worst time for me. I look at it, but I tend to not say much unless I can REALLY devote the time needed to give the library the proper amount of review time.
There might be "no answer" to the expectations questions. But I would be curious how others feel about this.
I.e. If I only have an hour or two to look at something- is it still useful for me to submit a review?
Whenever you feel like you can say something useful. I often have something useful to say after looking at the first few pages of documentation.
Part of the problem I have is an enormous respect for what a boost library is. It is not something one slaps together just to get their name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go "Wow". if it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost.
:)
But if I cannot devote the time needed to review something DEEPLY, I feel it is somewhat disrespectful for me to participate.
Do you guys think I am wrong to feel this way? Or do you find the opinions of a quick review valuable?
I do. Personally, I think too many libraries have been accepted recently with insufficient scrutiny. There are certainly a few I would have liked to have seen challenged along the lines of "this doesn't make me go wow," or "does the world really need this library?" -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis:
I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a review. For the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I had only studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a list of what I considered to be shortcomings of the library.
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed;
Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to come up with a good design.
I don't feel guilty. The episode left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Jonathan
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed;
Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to come up with a good design.
The question is: How far does a library author need to go in providing evidence that the design is "good" (which often means different things to different people, but lets ignore that for the moment)? Does a proposer need to "prove" that the library design is the best currently imaginable? While this might be possible for some libraries I don't think it is generally feasible. More specifically, if a raised point is so vague that the library author is at a complete loss exactly how an improvement could be implemented I think it is only fair to turn the roles around and require the reviewer to at least outline how the improvement is implementable within the given requirements. Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
"Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> writes:
I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed;
Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to come up with a good design.
The question is: How far does a library author need to go in providing evidence that the design is "good" (which often means different things to different people, but lets ignore that for the moment)? Does a proposer need to "prove" that the library design is the best currently imaginable?
A proposer needs to make a judgement call about which objections are worth trying to satisfy. Sorry, there aren't any hard and fast rules here.
While this might be possible for some libraries I don't think it is generally feasible. More specifically, if a raised point is so vague that the library author is at a complete loss exactly how an improvement could be implemented I think it is only fair to turn the roles around and require the reviewer to at least outline how the improvement is implementable within the given requirements.
You can't "require" anything of the reviewer. It's okay to ask, of course. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to come up with a good design.
The question is: How far does a library author need to go in providing evidence that the design is "good" (which often means different things to different people, but lets ignore that for the moment)? Does a proposer need to "prove" that the library design is the best currently imaginable?
A proposer needs to make a judgement call about which objections are worth trying to satisfy.
Agreed.
While this might be possible for some libraries I don't think it is generally feasible. More specifically, if a raised point is so vague that the library author is at a complete loss exactly how an improvement could be implemented I think it is only fair to turn the roles around and require the reviewer to at least outline how the improvement is implementable within the given requirements.
You can't "require" anything of the reviewer. It's okay to ask, of course.
I meant that the reviewer is "required" to elaborate *if* he wants to see his point addressed. Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Brian Braatz | Sent: 06 June 2005 21:28 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result | | It is not something one slaps together just to get their | name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go | "Wow". if it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost. WOW! - What a elistist view! Nothing WOW about STATIC_ASSERT (for example) - but not just useful but invaluable. IMO Boost library is about USEFULNESS and QUALITY. Quality code that starts by peer review AND because it is well exercised by lots of users on lots of different environments, and is amended often, so is likely to be as correct as can be and as portable as practical. And nobody gets their names in lights - just a bucket load of hassle manipulating their code for all the non-compliant compilers. Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
participants (5)
-
Andreas Huber -
Brian Braatz -
David Abrahams -
Jonathan Turkanis -
Paul A Bristow