-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Steven Ross via Boost Sent: 13 June 2017 12:09 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Steven Ross Subject: [boost] [sort] Timsort review result
After reviewing the responses, I have rejected Timsort. Here are the reasons:
1. No author/maintainer responses to the questions on boost (except for forwarding some documentation links). We need a maintainer for all our source, and I'm not volunteering to maintain new functions as complex as Timsort. 2. There was no response on the Timsort bug reported during the review, nor any tests for it.
Disappointing but agree with your judgement - a commitment to maintenance is vital, no matter how perfect the code ;-)
3. We need better tests. 4. Francisco is including a more efficient stable sort as part of his additions to the library, including handling special cases like Timsort handles better than stable_sort does. Francisco will maintain his code.
:-)
With regards to future sorting library reviews, I'll get at least a one-page doc describing the algorithm for the review in advance, but the boost documentation formatting is an unreasonable request for a simple sorting function, and I don't see the value it adds for these simple reviews. It is useful for a full library, but we'll be integrating the documentation into our full library after a new function is accepted.
That sounds fine to me - it was the total lack of docs that wasn't OK.
It isn't accurate to call it a mini-review (as described here: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Fast-Track) because it's reviewing completely new source we're talking about adding to the library. That said, do you still want me to a call the upcoming one for pdqsort a "mini-review"?
FWIW, and not wanting to go all legalistic, I think pdqsort does qualify - provided the Review Wizard says it does ;-) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830