[Boost-users] [Review] Polynomial library review begins today

Subject: [Boost-users] [Review] Polynomial library review begins today
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-10 08:23:07

The review of Pawel Kieliszczyk's Polynomial library begins today and ends 
on Thurs 19th March.

Download of the zip file from the vault is here: 
http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=polynomial.zip&directory=&PHPSESSID=bbc9a84b382be1fc412254cfe30b925b

Otherwise the library is present in the sandbox here: 
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/SOC/2008/polynomial/

And the docs can be read online here: 
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/SOC/2008/polynomial/libs/docs/index.html

The polynomial library contains a single class - polynomial<FieldType> - 
used for the manipulation of polynomials, along with a selection of 
algorithms which operate upon them.  The library is an extension/rewrite of 
the existing "implementation detail" polynomial class in Boost.Math, and was 
written as part of last years Google Summer of Code under the mentorship of 
Fernando Cacciola.

What to include in Review Comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager 
needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the 
way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers.

The goal of a Boost library review is to improve the library through 
constructive criticism, and at the end a decision must be made: is the 
library good enough at this point to accept into Boost? If not, we hope to 
have provided enough constructive criticism for it to be improved and 
accepted at a later time. The Serialization library is a good example of how 
constructive criticism resulted in revisions resulting in an excellent 
library that was accepted in its second review.

Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

    * What is your evaluation of the design?
    * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
    * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
    * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
    * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any 
problems?
    * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick 
reading? In-depth study?
    * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

And finally, every review should answer this question:

    * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be 
sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your 
overall opinion.

Many reviews include questions for library authors. Authors are interested 
in defending their library against your criticisms; otherwise they would not 
have brought their library up for review. If you don't get a response to 
your question quickly, be patient; if it takes too long or you don't get an 
answer you feel is sufficient, ask again or try to rephrase the question. Do 
remember that English is not the native language for many Boosters, and that 
can cause misunderstandings.

E-mail is a poor communication medium, and even if messages rarely get lost 
in transmission, they often get drowned in the deluge of other messages. 
Don't assume that an unanswered message means you're being ignored. Given 
constructively, criticism will be taken better and have more positive 
effects, and you'll get the answers you want.

John Maddock.
Review Manager for Polynomial Library.