On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:45 PM, John Phillips <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu
wrote:
Zachary Turner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Huber <
...
I definitely support this effort. I mean, how stupid would we feel if we review the first one, and then a little bit later we review the other one and find out it's a strict superset of the first, and also completely superior? Things like this need to be unquestionably prevented, regardless of the logistics that need to go into making it happen. I understand that a dual-review was tried before and nobody liked it. Instead of just concluding "therefore parallel reviews don't work", I think the conclusion should be "we need to address the concerns people had with parallel reviews at the time".
also, i think it should be mandatory for each library author to review the other author's library.
Zach
I believe my statement was that I'm not inclined to do it unless someone can tell me why this time will be different. So, if you can explain what the process needs to be to make reviewing them together work well, I'm all ears.
John
It's difficult to do that because I wasn't involved the last time such a review happened and it didn't go well, so I'm not in touch with all the issues. That being said, certainly each person needs to review the other person's library. Did that happen the first time a parallel review was attempted? Maybe it is just my naivete in not being familiar with the issues from last time, but I'm having a hard time understanding why doing a parallel review isn't hands down the obvious choice. Or rather, I'm having a hard time understanding why knowingly going into a review of a library with another very very very similar library only slightly further along in the review queue is even an option. I can't see any possible benefit to doing reviews this way, aside from "it's logistically easier than doing it the other way", and I also can't see any downsides to doing a parallel review, other than "it has some issues that need to be ironed out". On the other hand, the converse is definitely true -- that there are serious (and more importantly, long lasting) problems with not doing a parallel review. If Andrey's review is going to be first, and that's just the way it is, I can accept that -- but then delete the other library from the queue and just say there's no room for it at this time (assuming Andrey's gets accepted). How is the community served by having two virtually identical libraries? What if both of these libraries get accepted, and then 6 months later, I decide to submit YALL (yet another logging library) for review? Is it possible to have 3 logging libraries in boost? Where do we draw the line for "maximum number of virtually identical libraries allowed in boost"? Zach