Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Phillips" <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Generic Geometry Library (GGL).
vicente.botet wrote:
Hi,
When I see a library proposed for review I expect docs, tests and examples, so I can understand the library test it, and lear from the examples. It seems extrange to me you propose a library missing these important parts. It seems also extrange to me it has been accepted by the review manager and the review wizards.
I supose all of you have deep reasons to do this way, Best, Vicente
Vicente,
It is true that not everything for the library is currently in the sandbox. However, there is no requirement that the library is ever in the sandbox, so this is not a reason to deny a review. (If you look at the past history of reviews you will see that some libraries were never part of either the sandbox or the vault, but instead were hosted elsewhere. Remember that the sandbox and vault are for convenience, not required steps in development.) In the case of this library, because of the previous work in progress posts and requests for comment from Barend and collaborators we know that the missing pieces exist on previous forms and so don't have to worry that nothing is there.
I understand completly your concern and want to recall however that I have never requested that the library should be on the sandbox. It was Barent that give the pointer to the saanbox for its library, not me.
What are the actual requirements for a review request? There aren't any. A review request is a post by an author saying that there is a library they want reviewed. Though some authors share the work in progress before making the request, some others do not.
It seems to me that the work to be reviewed must be signaled on the formal review request, isn't it?
You are confusing the request for a review from the author with the actual review of the library. For the actual review to happen there is a requirement that all the pieces be available to any interested reviewer (whether through the sandbox or some other source is not constrained), and the expectation that the review manager has looked at the library enough to believe that holding a review would not be a waste of the time of the other members of the list. The review wizards do not separately check this unless it is requested by the review manager (something that has not ever happened, to my knowledge).
No. I don't think I'm confusing anything. I was aware that this was just a Formal Review Request. As the review wizard adds the library on the review schedule with the pointer to the library to review, it seems to me that a short check on the contents of the given pointer should avoid posts from the Boost community requesting where the doc can be obtained and things like that.
In this case, Hartmut has volunteered to manage the review. He is an experienced Boost developer and has managed high quality reviews in the past so the review wizards trust him to know if the library is ready for a review before asking for a date. That does not mean that anyone knows whether the library will pass the review. It just means that the library and its supporting files are complete enough and of high enough quality that the discussion will be valuable and there is a reasonable chance for passage.
I have no doubt of the high quality of the work Harmunt does, much more the oposite I recognize it.
I hope that helps you understand the system more clearly.
I think I understand how the system works. And I know I have a lot of things to learm from this list, as for example, what is the good way to signal something is missing or wrong. I will try to do better next time :) I hope this will help you to understand what was my initial concern: Should we accept a formal review request when there is no doc, no test and no examples? Best regards, Vicente